The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

What are those threats? I don't see any threats to the right of the people to speak openly, to assemble, or vote out the elected government, and this has certainly not come from anyone on the side supporting the individual right to bear arms.

I like hearing from you again. If you haven't been checking up on discussion in this space, this is the central disagreement you're going to run into. They do see these things, which it is then argued makes doing more of them necessary.

Go poll gen z and younger millennials. Memory fades, privacy is a good trade for security. Now, how this reconciles with the police being awful, we'll need to hand waive. Maybe with no guns they'd all sing kumbaya?

 

[MaryKB]

If you're going to have police and military rebel against the government, then you don't need armed citizens do you? We'd just get in the way and cause more problems.

I feel it's ridiculous to compare us to Afghanistan, I mean come on, for real? I'm not a war-buff by any means, but even I know the difference between invading another country on the other side of the world and putting down a rebellion at home.

And of course, there is a party in this country that's systematically stripping away peoples' rights, undermining democracy, trying to create a one-party state, and waging a war against the free press and wants propaganda instead. And this is the same party that supports unrestricted gun ownership: you really think people are going to "rebel" against their own party? These people love oppression and tyranny, like @hobbsyoyo said as long as it's directed at a group other than themselves (straight christian white men)

So let's consider a few scenarios? You keep saying things like "This could happen .. that could happen .." etc and trying to change the game.

• Citizens rebel against the entire government: are quickly and thoroughly crushed
• Police join citizens against the military: no need for guns, police are armed and trained
• Military joins police and citizens: again no need for guns, government can't win without the military
• Some police and military join: they're going to fight each other, any citizen involvement is going to do no more than make a mess
• Police and military stand down: so what are citizens doing? Marching into the Capitol and slaughtering Congress? If you think all the police and military will just let that happen, frankly you're delusional. And once some start getting involved, it's going to snowball out of control

The whole thing really is just as silly as that idea that "armed citizens are going to stop mass shootings" It's nothing more than silly little men who want their killin' sticks to feel big and powerful.

There is no logical or rational reason to want to own a gun (exceptions are hunters, which is stupid anyway, and someone living in the middle of the wilderness who might be at risk of dangerous wildlife, but we all know that's not what we're talking about here)

 

[Socrates99]

I reject this claim.

Sadly, I do too.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I like hearing from you again. If you haven't been checking up on discussion in this space, this is the central disagreement you're going to run into. They do see these things, which it is then argued makes doing more of them necessary.

Go poll gen z and younger millennials. Memory fades, privacy is a good trade for security. Now, how this reconciles with the police being awful, we'll need to hand waive. Maybe with no guns they'd all sing kumbaya?

Certainly can't blame them for their perspectives on privacy. The recent generations have been raised by parents that are so constantly up in their business that they need to visit a proctologist to ask what's for dinner. They've been told every day of their lives that their privacy means absolutely nothing compared to their safety.

 

[MaryKB]

How can you possibly have security without privacy???

(whose security are we talking about??)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Sadly, I do too.

Aside from just brushing it off out of hand, there is also the fact that probably a majority of retired/separated servicemen and women would be called back to service by the government and for the government should a civil war or something break out.

Edit: I don't know how you can argue that giving up privacy protections is a uniquely millennial or gen z issue with a straight face. Projection is a helluva drug at that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Aside from just brushing it off out of hand, there is also the fact that probably a majority of retired/separated servicemen and women would be called back to service by the government and for the government should a civil war or something break out.

They wouldn't go, so in that regard at least the statement "veterans would mostly oppose the government" is true.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Maybe? I don't know that that is true either. There is also an underlying assumption in @Commodore's argument that gun-toting conservatives would be against the government in all of these scenarios which I find dubious. And I think most veterans are pretty conservative so in the instance where the GOP installs a theocracy or whatever and sparks an insurrection, they'd be re-upping their enlistments and commissions en masse.

And given recent history, I think a theocracy or dictatorship by the right a far more likely cause of strife than Michelle Obama cutting chicken nugget portions at public schools and Barack apologizing for war crimes (while still bombing villages).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Maybe? I don't know that that is true either. There is also an underlying assumption in @Commodore's argument that gun-toting conservatives would be against the government in any of these scenarios which I find dubious. And I think most veterans are pretty conservative so in the instance where the GOP installs a theocracy or whatever and sparks an insurrection, they'd be re-upping their enlistments and commissions en masse.

I think that you and Commodore are both missing the main point.

The lack of civil order immediately makes all intention and ideology irrelevant. You are in Southern California. You are going to cooperate with whatever petty little local warlord can provide you with water, or you are going to die, period. Commodore lives in a less hostile environment so he is going to get drafted by whatever petty little local warlord gets the drop on him first, or he is going to be a petty little local warlord himself until someone else takes him out. The idea that people are going to be choosing between two sides while casually drawing a glass of drinking water from their tap and having a pizza delivered as they consult the internet about which is "more right for them" is absurd. 98% plus USians live in places where their own knowledge level regarding how to provide for their most basic needs is totally inadequate for the purpose of lasting out the week.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree with that for the general population but not specifically for veterans due to their background. We already saw the Iraq war cause a lot of veterans to get pulled back into active service against their will, it would happen again in a bigger way in the case of civil war.

Sure, some will get drafted by their local chief, whoever that happens to be, but the US government would be very active in trying to get them on their side regardless of where they are. There are enough internal military bases that even if the government lost most of them at the outset, they'd still have a far reach.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I agree with that for the general population but not specifically for veterans due to their background.

If your next door neighbor is a veteran the only difference that is going to make for him in regards to the lack of water is that he might be more willing to drink your blood than you are willing to drink his.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The government will promise water so he'd go join up when asked or offered. I don't think the immediate reach would be to violence if he has other options.

 

[Farm Boy]

Certainly can't blame them for their perspectives on privacy. The recent generations have been raised by parents that are so constantly up in their business that they need to visit a proctologist to ask what's for dinner. They've been told every day of their lives that their privacy means absolutely nothing compared to their safety.

Totes agree. If you never hurt yourself by yourself in little ways, no perspective on what to do for yourself in the big ones. Enormous disservice in parenting trends.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The government will promise water so he'd go join up when asked or offered. I don't think the immediate reach would be to violence if he has other options.

Nobody is going anywhere on a promise of water. The only way they are going anywhere is if someone has delivered them enough water to get there. The only promise of water that matters is a promise that doesn't involve going much of anywhere, like from the guy down the block who has the knowledge and equipment to distill drinkable water out of blood and promises that if you bring in your neighbor's you get a half cut of the produce. Then it's just a matter of whether you bring the neighbor's or he brings yours.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't equate civil war or strife with wasteland/post-apalyptic conditions. And while I do understand how much more fragile the population here is with respect to resilience toward power and water cuts, that's not a universal rule. Most of the country is adequately watered and those parts that are not are within a day or two's driving distance to places that are.

I would agree that a wasteland is a potential outcome of a civil war but I don't think it is a prerequisite, nor do I think the country (or even large swathes of it) would break down so fast that everyone would hunker down and/or die.

And massive shifts in population over space is a key feature of most civil wars so there's another likely outcome for Joe Public - not taking a side and becoming a refugee completely dependent on outside help.

 

[MaryKB]

Oh dear, I think you're getting a little too dystopian there @Uncle Tim! I myself never see any of these scenarios actually happening, but what I'm most afraid of (other than growing authoritarianism) is a culture of violence, and fights escalating to use of firearms. I mean for crying out loud, we have people shooting each other over toilet paper! All this talk of "fighting the government" I still feel is just cover, because the real reason to have guns legal is completely stupid.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't equate civil war or strife with wasteland/post-apalyptic conditions. And while I do understand how much more fragile the population here is with respect to resilience toward power and water cuts, that's not a universal rule. Most of the country is adequately watered and those parts that are not are within a day or two's driving distance to places that are.

I would agree that a wasteland is a potential outcome of a civil war but I don't think it is a prerequisite, nor do I think the country (or even large swathes of it) would break down so fast that everyone would hunker down and/or die.

And massive shifts in population over space is a key feature of most civil wars so there's another likely outcome for Joe Public - not taking a side and becoming a refugee completely dependent on outside help.

Power and water distribution systems require 24/7/365 operation in order to function...and not just the local distribution systems need to be operated for you to get delivery. Commodore made the point earlier that cops aren't going to just keep showing up for work when the possibility of being blown up on the way by an IED, or their family encountering a hostile situation in their absence becomes a significant probability. Neither are utility workers. So while many cities are better located for their residents to turn into a hoard of refugees catching raindrops on their tongues to survive the root problem is still pretty much universal.

 

[Socrates99]

Totes agree. If you never hurt yourself by yourself in little ways, no perspective on what to do for yourself in the big ones. Enormous disservice in parenting trends.

I always wonder if those trends come from the same fearmongering used to support gun rights and anti immigrant sentiment. Numbers are twisted and inflated to scare people into supporting certain political positions. Every time I try to convince my wife to loosen up with the boys she says things are different from when we were kids. Statistically speaking it was far more likely for me and my brothers to be assaulted, kidnapped, sold into trafficking in the 80s and 90s than my boys today. Twice as likely. I had to pull up hard stats to prove it to her and even those can be misleading. For instance sex trafficking numbers now often include run of the mill prostitution to inflate the percieved threat. Crime is way down from what it was a couple decades ago.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's every jackass's tool.

Though if you're looking for changes in policy, the anti-immigrant sentiment is significantly more new on the new side. The other is mostly status quo.

Hard to talk about though. Taking just immigration for example, those advocating change want to call themselves conserving while they create something new and meaner, and the conservatives want to call their parents' progress their own. Lies. **** 'em.

 

[cardgame]

the difference between invading another country on the other side of the world and putting down a rebellion at home.

France tried to put down a rebellion at home in French Indochina and look what happened.

There is no logical or rational reason to want to own a gun (exceptions are hunters, which is stupid anyway, and someone living in the middle of the wilderness who might be at risk of dangerous wildlife, but we all know that's not what we're talking about here)

Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.