"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders.
Duh.
Obviously the U.S. army has far more firepower than a group of hunters. But even a much, much smaller band of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan has been able to create substantial problems for the U.S. in its own in guerrilla warfare against the U.S. military. Is it really so implausible that a group orders of magnitude larger would not be able to stand a chance?
(Keep in mind, too, that if there ever were to be a serious rebellion in the U.S. you'd probably have a lot of desertion from the U.S. military. In fact, some of them might even bring some of that firepower to the other side.)
You're hoping for some "flipped switch" type of tyranny that never happens. Even Hitler's madness took place in phases and wasn't universally recognized as a threat.
This idea of immediate revolt is a fairy tale. One that other gun-less countries watch in awe. Don't you think its time to move on and concentrate on more important issues?
How ironic that you would accuse him of making a really poor argument when yours is about as poor as they come. I hope no one upvoted that drivel.
The pro-gun movement seems to be completely ignorant to the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst.
Society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
As the above dictionary definition suggests, a society is based on a collective set of ideas, rules and order so that all within the society can live peacefully. Remove the guns and the strange associated chest-thumping, less people die. It's really that simple.
You used to be able to drink and drive, until we all realized it was for the betterment of the society to change that. You lost that right, too. Guns are no different.
Not true.
US citizens are more effective than police in handling firearms:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-t...
http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
scroll down to "Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police"
Please, America. Spend some time wondering how other modern countries get by. You'll have no choice but to conclude it is possible to get by without guns.
Police cannot be readily available in places like this (or in New York really, but for entirely different reasons).
In the absence of such knowledge, I think it's fair to point out that police are generally reactive. In the case of murder, they obviously weren't able to prevent the crime. As it stands, the sheer amount of crime we have speaks to the ineffectiveness of our existing police departments, and while they could almost certainly be made better, they can't likely be made perfect.
In the case of an assault against me, my home or my family, my call to the police is not going to be made until I have at least assured the relative safety of myself and mine enough that making a call would be prudent. This means that, if someone is pointing a gun at me, if you give me the choice of whether I should have a cell phone in my hand or a firearm, I'll take the latter. Police are the first responders, but I believe that self defense is a personal responsibility, especially as Warren v DC[1] concluded that the police aren't under any obligation to protect me, despite whatever slogans may be painted on their vehicles.
Of course, this ignores that nobody should have to defend their purchase of firearms in the US to anyone. It's a Constitutionally enumerated right, and according to our founders, a "natural, God-given right". Ignoring the theistic rhetoric, that means that I am able to possess a firearm, and most definitely for the purpose of self defense.
If you could figure out such a way that would prevent me ever needing to use a firearm for self defense, as well as ensuring a means to prevent government tyranny, then perhaps I would consider relinquishing that right. Until such time, I will exercise that right lawfully and responsible and hope that I never need to use a firearm in defense.
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
You would throw away a peoples' right to defend themselves against an oppressive regime based on what, precisely? Your presumed ability to foretell the future? Your hunch that humanity has progressed beyond our base instincts?
If that is the case, then you are a fool, which would put you in good company with the rest of the anti-gun crowd.
Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad.
Or is it that government is "special" and only the sort that would misplace their power? You do know the government is made up of citizens, right? Or do you think that once you get a government job you suddenly become vile? Would love your insight.
Again, your argument sits within the confines of American reality, while the rest of the world gets by. What paranoid, delusional scenario do you see playing out exactly? Your government/other regime turns against you...and what? The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? Come on, man. Really?
You're the only modern country that thinks this way. Let that sink in for a bit.
>The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people?
What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can).
>You're the only modern country that thinks this way.
That's what Europeans have been saying to us for ~200 years (although, previously referring to things other than gun ownership). In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?"
I don't, really. But it is frustrating watching, oh, I don't know, 95% of the developed world somehow getting by without guns while the US can't see past them.
> What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can).
You're hope of defending yourself against government (i.e. drones - which can attack from the sky, no less), is infantile, to say the least. Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol.
> In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?"
That's great rhetoric, except I'm not advocating for monarchies. That's a straw man argument, because I've not once advocated for such a thing. And it's not a black and white subject. Not having guns doesn't automatically make you a monarchy. Suggesting such is ridiculous and provides a fruitless argument.
My main point was to demonstrate that simply because other countries participate and subscribe to a certain way of doing things, does not mean it's the "right way to do it." I was not trying to put words in your mouth. Further, to suggest that the US should rid our society of guns is not realistic and betrays a significant lack of understanding of the prevalent culture in the US.
>Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol.
Again, I do not own any gun, but if you would like to see how 'primitive' weapons can be used in defiance of powerful government, just look at Afghanistan or Vietnam.
Just so we are doubly clear, I would prefer if all destructive weapons were destroyed, including those of governments. I just don't think that's realistic at this time.
This isn't some crazy conspiracy theory - it's basic history and common sense. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: these are but a few of the sociopaths who aspired to power in the last century alone; the list of what happens when too few people gain too much power goes on and on and on. And you think that it can't happen here? That it will never happen here? Then you are a fool. You cannot imagine a world where the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves against oppression not because such a world is unlikely, but because you lack foresight and the ability to examine history and your fellow man with a critical eye. The world has been this way throughout human history, and it is still this way today. Fifty years of relative peace on a timeline of hundreds of thousands of years of near-constant oppression do not mean we have progressed beyond those baser instincts.
Guns are power; as such, the right to bear arms represents another form of the decentralization of power. If democracy fails, that final check will remain, and those who don't have their heads up their asses understand this relatively simple and basic truth.
I am very well traveled, and I am well aware of what the rest of the world thinks about American notions of freedom. I have given this issue much consideration, and after many hours of careful deliberation and argument parsing, I have come to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is one of the few aspects of American culture that I am vehemently in favor of. I don't care whether the rest of the world understands these concepts or not - I do, we do, and we are clearly not interested in giving this right up easily.
So if you don't like it, that's fine - no one's forcing you to abide by our rules (yet, heh). But if you think that this mindset is based on delusional thinking, paranoia, or anything other than sound reasoning; if you think that we are a bunch of gun-toting ignorant, overly aggressive, uncivilized assholes who're just too dumb to see things YOUR way, then please: allow me to kindly ask you to go fuck yourself.
Do you think that the 11,000+ people who are killed with firearms are worthless? Because they are being killed by sociopaths, you know, the kind you list above.
You are alright with 11,000+ deaths (per year) because you feel, one day, maybe, there might be a possibility of a tyrannical government. That's not democracy, that's straight up lunacy. Get a straight jacket, my friend. Paranoia is abound.
We're living in 2013, where communication and technology live. You're living in a time where tyrannical ideas are put to rest swiftly due to intelligence, due process and strong desire for freedom. Not something witnessed in the timeframe of the nuts you listed. Get a tinfoil hat.
You're discounting the very people you claim to be vigilant, without realizing it.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport. Any serious discussion about gun control cannot ignore that, and you can't logic it away. It's the elephant in the room, and it won't seriously change one way or another except in a constitutional context.
~700,000 cops, 1.4 million active duty military and ~200 million gun owners (many of whom have had military training) is quite a mismatch, all right, but not in quite the way you think.
Where are you getting this number from? 200 million gun owners means that nearly 2 in 3 US citizens owns a gun which doesn't sound close to correct.
http://rense.com/general62/gns.htm says 80 million gun owners.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp says 70-80 million adult gun owners.
I can't find any better numbers, but 80 million sounds more reasonable.
(still an order of magnitude more than police/military, but not 66% of American citizens).
I think this is a fact gun rights folks miss. We can clear people when they purchase guns, but a gun is a lethal weapon for years. You can't guarantee it won't fall into other hands in 30 years.
Some people argue we should give up, and embrace the number privately owned weapons in the US: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case...
Others argue that registration of weapons is a better solution: http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/24/fact-check-the-gun-regi...
But the sheer number of these things is amazing. FWIW, the country with the second highest number of guns per capital is YEMEN. With a gun for only 5.4 out of 10 citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...
(IMHO, gun registration and improving our mental health system would go a long way toward addressing gun violence)
2) Even using your number, it's still 80 million compared to 2 million (and not all of those two million are going to go along with it anyway).
So true. My favorite:
"Busted: Gun Control Legislator Dianne Feinstein Discusses Why She Concealed Carried Firearms"
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/32591-busted-gun-control-leg...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan#Gun_Control_Controve...
2) "still an order of magnitude more than police/military"
The figure of 270 million guns total is somewhat more reliable because there's at least some idea of how many have been manufactured.
We could try using the Fermi estimation technique ("how many piano tuners are there in Chicago?").
270 million guns / claimed 80 million gun owners -> mean number of guns owned per owner is ~3.3. That seems high. Most gun owners I know own one gun. Some own two. Some own more, but I would bet money that the mean number is closer to one than it is to three.
The reason is that different guns have different uses. If someone is concerned about personal protection, they'll have a handgun. A big rifle is useful for hunting or just messing around, but the ammo might be expensive (ammo for my M1 Garand is over $1.25 per round!) so someone might have something like a .22 rifle (ammo has historically been less than 10 cents per round) that can be used inexpensively for fun. If you hunt birds a lot and/or like to shoot clay pigeons, you'll also have a shotgun.
3.3 seems pretty reasonable to me.
If you hang around with woodworkers, the number of hammers owned is going to be more than one. If you're talking about random people, it's going to be much lower.
At any rate - 3.3 still seems reasonable to me. Although I'm not incredibly confident about it, your anecdotes and assumptions aren't enough to convince me that it is substantially higher than the actual rate.
I have to agree with suresk people, out of all of the folks I know, the number of guns is either 0 or >1. I don't know anyone with just one gun. I suppose if you divided the number of people in a household by the number of guns you may get a number closer to 1, but that means assigning gun ownerships to babies.
So you would agree that the 200 million number is also unreliable?
Another data point: the NRA-ILA puts the number of gun owners at 60-65 million http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/FirearmsFacts.htm
The figure of 270 million guns total is somewhat more reliable
Agreed, but that wasn't the statistic given.
Remember that we're not talking about merely an insurgency here, we're talking about an insurgency with massive popular support, against a government that has turned tyrannical. In such a situation there is no technological or firepower advantage that guarantees victory to the state, even nuclear weapons. There are always points of weakness, which can be exploited best by folks backed by extensive popular support locally. An uprising of ubiquitously armed civilians would be able to quickly overpower police forces, and they'd also be able to take over some military bases, gaining access to more powerful weapons. There would also likely be defections from military forces.
Look at Syria as an example, the regime there is ruthless and willing even to use mass carpet bombing and shelling on civilian targets, and there is no right to private gun ownership there, and yet somehow the rebels have managed to arm themselves not just with small arms but also RPGs, mortars, and tanks. Facilitating the early stages of a rebellion vastly accelerates all of the later stages. Moreover, mass civilian ownership of firearms means that the ability of police and armed forces to attack the public without fear of injury becomes much diminished, which provides a deterrent effect against such attacks.
or with AR-15's
The AK-47 is far, far less likely to jam than even the best AR-15's, which still has a reputation for jamming.
How does it apply to carrying guns in public, especially concealed guns?
Apocryphal? From http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-pe...: "This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson."
How about a substitute?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
And:
"The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave."
But you're right not to worry, because you're our favorite hat, so we'd take care of you.
More tyrannical U.S Government = More "Shock and Awe" abroad.
But I'll bite anyways: how many more children have died under oppressive regimes where the people were not able to defend themselves?
The entire history of the human race has been that of oppression of the many by the few; only in the last few hundred years have we begun to cast off those chains, and though it is tempting to believe that we will never see them again, people still desire power, sociopaths still exist, and considering the history of our species, I think it unlikely that the world has seen the end of destabilization, riots, and war.
It has only been half a century since the end of the last 'War to End All Wars,' which happened just a couple of decades after the previous War to End All Wars, shortly after the second World War, the world fell under the shadow of the Cold War, a period where we came very close to all-out global nuclear war numerous times. I'm sure you're familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis. You may also want to google Stanislov Petrov.
Ask an economist just how close we came to all-out GLOBAL banking collapse just a few years ago; we were within a hair's breadth of a severe financial meltdown, and that is not an appeal to emotion - that is fact.
None of us can predict the future, but to assume that we have seen the end of destabilization and the unknowns that destabilization brings seems rather foolish.
And while you're at it, maybe you could tell me how your little handgun is going to protect you from the next Cuban Missile Crisis? You must be a hellofa shot!
America.
...
You people are dense to the point of complete idiocy.
My point is that the current period of prosperous peace (relatively speaking) will certainly not last forever. Wars are a fact of life, and when they happen, regimes fall and power vacuums arise. Sometimes, those vacuums are filled not by the most capable (and rarely by the most benevolent) but by the most ambitious. Given the history of the human race, it would be foolish to believe that there will never be another Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al, and on a long enough timeline, it would be incredibly foolish to believe that there will never be one in your neck of the woods, wherever that may be. What are you going to do when you've been labeled an enemy of the state and your friends and family are being shuttled off to a labor camp? Write a strongly worded fucking letter?
Guns are our insurance policy that we will not be easily oppressed, whether by a foreign invader or our own government, and that you people have such a difficult time accepting this obvious truth is utterly baffling.
And do you know why the South lost? Because the majority of America was not on board with slavery. It was an idea whose time had come to die, and die it did, though not without a fight.
Can you guess which side the majority would be on in a situation where the majority were being oppressed?
What a stupid fucking point you're trying to make.
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S.) – July 4, 1826)
There is a huge difference between the industrial technology and government capabilities then and now.