It's probably more likely I'll accidentally shoot my wife in an ambien stupor then a home invader. — RogueAI

:rofl:

So you’re comparing guns with nutrition? — Wayfarer

Freedom means freedom to do what one desires, provided it does not trespass on a need of another person. In a perfect world, one does not "need" weapons. But, guess what? Everything is a weapon. You are a weapon, if you get hungry enough from lack of nutrition. Would you not take from another, if you can easily do so, if your body requires it? You would. Perhaps not you, personally, but most if not many would. So the two are equated, if you consider "guns" simply "innovation that prolongs the human experience", yes.

In short, they are comparable. I don't claim to do so, but those around you, a great many, do, yes. Do you wish to ignore human opinion? That's fine if so. And you'll need guns if you wish to prolong such for very long, I'm afraid.

Wouldn't the average man make an average ruler? Someone who doesn't do too much harm or good? I'm thinking of most people I know and none of them would turn into, say, Pol Pot, if they were put in that position.

Assad was an average man, we was an ophthalmologist in London before he became a genocidal maniac.

:100:

But he was the scion of the ruling dynasty who also happened to have trained as an ophthalmologist.

Where I live, the police are undermotivated, underpaid, understaffed and underpriviledged to effectively fight crime. They cannot reasonably keep people safe from criminals and other types of deranged individuals who know how to play the system. Those are basically more protected by the system than the law-abiding citizens they terrorize.

Therefore, I believe I, and any sane adult with a clean record, should be allowed to carry a handgun for protection. Though I do believe it should be heavily regulated and monitored.

Safety is something that is either carried society-wide, or it exists only as an illusion, by virtue of not having the misfortune of running into the deranged people who are basically allowed to run amok as long as they don't do anything particularly stupid infront of a camera.

If the law no longer properly functions, it should be put back into the hands of the people.

"When every second counts, the police are only minutes away!"

Agreed. My mom almost got kidnapped when she was pregnant with me. Without her gun threatening the guy off, it's very possible she, my younger siblings and I might not be here. It's honestly wild to me that some people are so excited by the idea of making sure the most vulnerable among us have no personal protection in exchange for some nebulous idea of safety.

Originally, historically, that was the case; but there are some weapons we have now that had no analogous weapon back then (such as nukes). I am fine with a debate about whether or not we should have those kinds of weapons, but firearms are clearly protected under the 2nd ammendment and so are morters, grenades, etc.

The main point of the 2nd ammendment is to have that balance of power; which doesn't necessarily require that the people have things like tanks: they need to proper weaponry to fight gorilla warfare in civilian areas. The government is not going to nuke their own country: that hurts them too significantly.

What is contradictory with what I said? The phrase "you can't have your cake and eat it too" refers to one holding a contradiction. I noted that a well-regulated militia helps prevent a tyrannical government.

Guns are literally why Americans have civil liberty in the first place.

How so? Present your argument. — Leontiskos

I don't really understand your request. It's a simple statement of fact: given that governments already have a "monopoly of coercion" even without stricter gun control — e.g. cruise missiles, tanks, attack helicopters, fully automatic weapons, etc. — arguing against stricter gun control on the grounds that it will give governments a monopoly of coercion is moot.

And in general I think that actual innocent people being killed by civilians with guns is a bigger concern than some alarmist argument that a government could potentially turn tyrannical.

And in general I think that actual innocent people being killed by civilians with guns is a bigger concern than some alarmist argument that a government could potentially turn tyrannical. — Michael

That wasn't my argument at all. Why don't you try to state the argument I gave so that I understand what you are attempting to argue against.

I don't really understand your request. It's a simple statement of fact: given that governments already have a "monopoly of coercion" even without stricter gun control — e.g. cruise missiles, tanks, attack helicopters, fully automatic weapons, etc. — arguing against stricter gun control on the grounds that it will give governments a monopoly of coercion is moot. — Michael

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that one government allows civilians firearms whereas a second government does not, and yet both governments have tanks, prohibit civilians from possessing tanks, and actually direct government tanks against civilians. Apparently your claim is that both governments possess an equal monopoly of coercion. But that's not true at all, and therefore your "statement of fact" is not factual. The claim is also misleading given that there is generally a distinction between nation-state-directed arms and civilian-directed arms - which is to say that tanks and cruise missiles function among the set of nation states, and if one nation state demanded a monopoly on all such arms it would also be tyrannical vis-a-vis the other nation states.

The second reason it is misleading is due to the fact that the government/civilian dichotomy is false, given that government and association exist at various levels of locality. Intermediating associations betwixt civilian and federal government—including non-federal governmental bodies—provide similar anti-tyrannical functions, even despite the fact that modern nation states are inherently bent towards tyranny due to their relatively monolithic nature. The age of nation states correlates to an absence of intermediating institutions possessing coercive force.

Apparently your claim is that both governments possess an equal monopoly of coercion. — Leontiskos

It isn't.

That wasn't my argument at all. Why don't you try to state the argument I gave so that I understand what you are attempting to argue against. — Leontiskos

That was an aside, not directed specifically at you but at any attempt to defend the right to own guns on the need to prevent a tyrannical government.

It isn't. — Michael

And do you see that your claim of mootness fails once it is recognized that a system can be more or less monopolistic?

And do you see that your claim of mootness fails once it is recognized that a system can be more or less monopolistic? — Leontiskos

It doesn't.

It doesn't. — Michael

So you can't see it. That doesn't surprise me.

But do you think an armed populace is an impediment to tyranny?

- Yes. Controlling who has access to weapons is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Yes. Controlling who has access to weapons is one of the oldest tricks in the book. — Leontiskos

I just don't see this as plausible. If America becomes tyrannical, it will only be because the military and police forces support whatever tyrant there is. And if the military and police are involved, they're not going to be intimidated by American small arms in the hands of non-professionals. There will be very few gun owners willing to risk a drone strike on themselves or their families to take a potshot at a soldier or cop.

There will be very few gun owners willing to risk a drone strike on themselves or their families to take a potshot at a soldier or cop. — RogueAI

We have people that would literally do that right now in this country with very little excuse. You cannot comprehend how much some Americans like guns and hate authority.

We have people that would literally do that right now in this country with very little excuse. — MrLiminal

If that were true, there would be a lot more than the 100 or so LEO deaths in 2024. There's almost a million cops in the country. Getting gunned down on the job is like getting hit by lightning.

You cannot comprehend how much some Americans like guns and hate authority.

There will be some, sure. Soldiers and cops of the tyrannical regime will occasionally be killed. But it will not be enough to end the tyranny. It's not like Americans with guns who hate authority are going to do any damage to a unit like the 101st Airborne.

There will be very few gun owners willing to risk a drone strike on themselves or their families to take a potshot at a soldier or cop. — RogueAI

With all due respect, you might benefit if you would stop thinking that people are by and large rational, or otherwise like yourself. Patrick Henry, much? Not to sully the good name but the story of America is basically literally doing exactly that. Basically word for word. Am I wrong? :lol:

Furthermore, the idea of a military bombardment of its own civilians would result in Constitutional crisis and basically declaration of martial law. Essentially turning a world power into a "warring nation" or "politically unstable territory" ie. a "No Man's Land". Sure, they'd probably cover it up before anything that affects the average person would occur. But it would definitely shake things up on the international level with consequences that would affect each and every citizen due to trade, increased military presence by other due to global social justifications, and so on. So while a drone strike is unlikely, I get your point, say something that actually does happen often I.E. a heavily armed law enforcement response (SWAT, etc.).

I was talking about a scenario where tyranny has already happened, with the help of the military and police and there are no constitutional rights anymore. In that scenario, I don't see American gun owners doing anything to stop the tyranny. I don't see them doing anything to prevent it either, once the military gets involved.

I was talking about a scenario where tyranny has already happened, with the help of the military and police and there are no constitutional rights anymore. — RogueAI

And they probably would have already stopped the sale of guns and ammunition anyway.

They would have, and they would probably be moving to confiscate weapons, but in the interim, there are 400 million guns in the country and tons of ammo and over 100 million gun owners, but I don't see any of that stopping a tyrannical takeover of the country.

I don't see American gun owners doing anything to stop the tyranny. I don't see them doing anything to prevent it either, once the military gets involved. — RogueAI

Sure, that's a fair point. When you're outgunned, you're outgunned. You either live to fight another day, or you take the Hannibal approach. Not unlike the Sampson option. (Assuming your going to be enslaved or abused, women and children especially, very popular option historically).

I don't see any of that stopping a tyrannical takeover of the country. — RogueAI

It's mostly the "better than nothing" theory where, let's say people hostile to anyone here significantly cripple the military (even in small isolated areas), at least they have something to fight back with if it comes to ground troops. Which, of course, can be argued as significantly less likely in an age of nuclear warfare and other "goodies". But it's still possible. And so still has merit.

Yeah, it's logically possible. But I put my Bob Ross hat on and say it's metaphysically impossible. But I don't believe that either. It's possible American gun owners could cause so much damage they could prevent a descent into tyranny, but I just don't see that as plausible. I would not hang my hat on that as a reason to allow Americans to legally own guns. It's not a convincing argument anymore.

Vietnam and Afghanistan proved an entrenched and armed populace can defeat a technologically superior foe. America was even founded by doing so.

Vietnam and Afghanistan proved an entrenched and armed populace can defeat a technologically superior foe. — MrLiminal

In Vietnam, the NVA, a military organization, was more instrumental than its civilian component, the VC. Afghanistan, you have a point, except those two wars were foreign wars where nothing was really at stake. America eventually quit the field and no harm came to them. I don't think that's going to be true of an American tyranny that sees any threats to its existence as existential threats.

"America was even founded by doing so."

America had a professional army that fought the British in the field in the European manner numerous times. And French help. They didn't win that war with only militia.

It's possible American gun owners could cause so much damage they could prevent a descent into tyranny, but I just don't see that as plausible. I would not hang my hat on that as a reason to allow Americans to legally own guns. It's not a convincing argument anymore. — RogueAI

Fair. Still, another slightly different yet fundamentally crucial question remains. If there's two houses to rob, and you have to rob one. Do you rob the guy who you know can blow your head off with a single trigger pull in a fraction of a second, or the guy who has to stab or physically overpower you or otherwise lure you into a trap?

Which of the two do you think would be most likely to be victimized, and how do you think, each individual in said house knowing this, would develop mentally and what related mental conditions or ailments or phobias would most likely develop between the two, respectively? :chin:

There are tests with animals that parallel this topic, mind you.