Gun Control

We seem to actually agree on most things here.

We’re both in agreement that it’s cool if everyone gets rid of their guns simultaneously, if that’s somehow possible.
We’re both not cool if the government gets rid of their guns first, because domestic terrorists will rise up.

The only disagreement seems to be that I’m also ok with the citizens being disarmed prior to the government being disarmed, and you are not.
I would also find a scenario where the citizens are disarmed, and the government is never disarmed, as preferable to the current status quo. You clearly are not.

The threat you are worried about, a military dictatorship, a police state, the end of democracy, these are real threats that we are all concerned with in the US and elsewhere. Even Bill Clinton of all people is worried about it, and he said so yesterday.

But those threats already exist today. We have plenty of guns today. Are guns the reason we haven’t lost democracy yet? No. No amount of guns in the hands of the citizens can do anything to protect democracy in the year 2022. Citizens having guns is not the reason we haven’t been successfully coup-ed yet. Us getting more guns in the hands of citizens will do nothing to change the coup calculus. Those would-be autocrats who want to end democracy are not being held back by thoughts of armed citizens. Their methods can not be countered with guns. Even if we all load up on guns and ammo, it will not matter. Whether democracy is protected or not will not be determined by guns in the hands of citizens.

If we disarm all the citizens, but leave the government armed, will those threats exist? Yes. They will exist exactly as they do today. The only difference is that we will all be safer and more prosperous with less guns out there.

I would go on to say that I believe that having more guns in the hands of the populace, regardless of which citizens have them, actually increases the risk of losing our democracy. Perhaps that is why anti-democratic forces in the present era are pro-gun, where as historically they have been anti-gun? I have no evidence for this, but the logic goes something like this. If there are more guns, there are more shootings. That leads to more fear of crime, societal upheaval, and unrest. Those feelings in a democracy lead people to vote for more conservative tough on crime candidates while democracy still exists. And if fear persists, it can lead to people actually being totally ok with something like martial law being declared. Less guns, less death, less fear, less chance of that happening. I have no numbers to support this last paragraph, though. Just a logical train of thought that is somewhat slippery slope-ish.

1 Like

I do feel like there’s some kind of middle ground where the people give up 20% the cops do 20% and so on. This kind of solution is what I started out by asking for. I genuinely think there could be some great solutions here that don’t include what I see as quite a bad thing.

If I haven’t convinced ya to try and shoot for that at least I’ve hopefully shown I want the same stuff just don’t trust cops more I suppose.

1 Like

I’d be very happy if that worked. I agree it’s very preferable to citizens being the only ones disarmed.

But having citizens being the only ones who disarm is very preferable to the status quo, and it’s more realistic to accomplish it. And even that much is still very very difficult to achieve given the current state of things, at least here. If that’s all that’s on the table, I’m not going to say no to it and maintain the status quo just because I couldn’t get the cops to disarm at the same time.

I’m trying hard in all areas of life to not let the perfect become the enemy of any amount of improvement whatsoever.

1 Like

Well as I think I mentioned, we have a first principal we disagree on. The axioms we start with are not the same. I prefer the status quo (bad as it may be) to the uncertain future where all is the same but regular folk don’t have guns.

1 Like

There are many countries around the world where there is very strong gun control, but the government still has guns. Japan obviously the first that comes to mind. Are you afraid to go to those countries? Do they appear to be at risk of some sort of autocratic takeover?

Those countries or areas suffer from my favourite image of a plane:

image

Survivorship bias

1 Like

The countries with strict gun control could accuse the countries without it of survivorship bias as well. “How is it possible to have a country survive where citizens are mass murdering each other frequently? Well those countries managed it somehow.” Except wait, the countries with the mass murders have a lot more social upheaval, unrest, and instability than the ones that don’t. Hmmm.

Anyway, let’s compare two scenarios.

Scenario 1: Your worst fear comes to pass. We take away guns from the civilians, but not the government. Then democracy ends and we live in a police state.

Scenario 2: We maintain the status quo. Guns are all around as much as they are today. Then democracy ends and we live in a police state.

Please explain to me how you imagine life in scenario 2 will be better than life in scenario 1.

https://twitter.com/DrRJKavanagh/status/1538080494637686789?t=8zhdhu1bHQRNsGmR0JUsIw&s=19

Remove all guns by all means.

2 Likes

This is real bad.

I put good odds on even the new paltry gun control bill that’s in the Senate being overturned before too long (if it’s even passed).

2 Likes

EDIT: It passed.

What’s the over/under on how long until one of these is used for a mass murder?

1 Like