Freedoms are also betrayed by other citizens, including those with guns. I'm not too concerned with a Cambodian genocide happening in the US. I am infinitely more concerned that I'll be shot.
This seems plausible, but is this just a throwaway statement or is it supported by historical evidence? It's actually a pretty interesting question, that has never occurred to me until now, how well people have historically been able to judge the safety and stability of their own political situations. Perhaps there's some literature out there on this?
I have no explicit evidence. I suspect its a combination of "head in the sand" and "I have no voice". In practical terms, you have no control over your country's future. Your vote is insignificant relative to the populace. So your next move is manage yourself and your families affairs and hope for the best. Frankly, the US's debt will crush it in the near future. How near is the question. There isn't much I can do about it. So, I put my head down and hope the fallout doesn't impact my family as much as others.
I don't have references, but I don't think people are all that good at it. Why else do strongman dictators keep getting into power?
Before the whole WW2 and holocaust thing, Germans really laughed off Hitler. They believed they were too artsy, too cosmopolitan, and just too advanced for a dictator.
So my guts tell me we're not great at judging real threats politically.
"I am infinitely more concerned that I'll be shot." - for real? That is extremely illogical, given the facts. I realize this data is about deaths rather than shootings. But its still applicable.
This is a little dated, 4-5 years maybe. There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Police are supposed to protect you from those problems, a society that takes care of its people wont have to worry about people causing a revolution or going around shooting people.
The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well.
There are a 110 ways to kill people, if someone wants to kill you on the streets, not having guns aren’t what’s holding them back. It’s far easier to buy fetanyl in your streets, and just inject someone with a high dosage and leave.
> I'm not too concerned with a Cambodian genocide happening in the US.
I wouldn’t cast the concern aside that freely if I were you, I don’t think its productive to look down on Cambodians as less civilised or believe in a sort of American exceptionalism, where things like the Cambodian genocide is not a possibility.
As an example, I’d like to show the time when the government of California, was actively sterilising perfectly healthy american citizens for “eugenics” purposes [1][2] (a precursor to what could constitute genocide if those policies were nationalised)
This is however just one example, you could argue they are linked to racism and a race superiority complex from those times, but reasons and causes can change across different times, the communities targeted may also change, the outcome (the potential risk of a government turning its back on its own people) is always present.
The great governance (in comparison to nations across the world) that america benefitted from in the last century, was earned and paid for in blood, ideas and sweat by you’re previous generations of citizens, constitution designers, policymakers, independent organisations, and right groups (on both aisles).
I would say the concerns of a gov fallout is always ever present and the duty of every citizen in any democracy across the world to keep an eye out for, and put in all sorts of protections against such fallout whenever possible.
> The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well.
What a violent fantasy. Can you show us any legitimate, serious source that says such a thing, or indicates that it has any basis? When in US history has the government or it's officials been "very afraid" of the citizenry? (Who would serve in such a government?)
And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it.
> And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it.
I don’t think its good to pretend that some holy god falls out of the sky every few years during election time and asks every citizen who they want to choose as their leader.
No one’s talking about slinging guns and start shooting up all the politicians. If one doesn’t like a policy, they should go to the courts, write a letter to their representatives or vote for someone else the next time who they agree more with.
The issue is in pretending as if all of this is a god given right. It needs to be defended every moment.
You dont want an elected representative to come to power, setup the military to be loyal to that leader and then pull the rug on everyone else, jail the opposition, enslave the public.
I’m not saying this out of some fiction book, it’s happening as we speak in Myanmar, happens every few years in Pakistan, essentially the status quo in North Korea.
A robust democracy should not depend on the good will of dear leader. But be based on the foundation of its public.
More people are dying in america from drug addiction (from hopelessness and neglect of society), obesity, drunk driving, suicides every month, than you’ll see deaths from the 2nd amendment rights of everyday citizens to have guns and the right to carry them.
You have to ask yourself, why politicians rile up the public so deeply about the 2nd amendment, but totally ignore the common public’s disheartening reality and abandonment.
The 2nd amendment is a worst case scenario law, if you read history of most countries across the world and the tyranny of governments who have 0 fear of public, maybe it might change your mind.
I’m not saying that the 2nd amendment makes american politicans shiver in their beds and make it hard to sleep at night, or prevent them from still disappointing the public.
But there are far more worse realities which would make the current “hell” look like a sweet ideal utopia.
Every country and its citizens should strive to improve the lives of the public, disarming the masses is an odd hill to die on while on that quest.
> Police are supposed to protect you from those problems, a society that takes care of its people wont have to worry about people causing a revolution or going around shooting people.
> The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well.
Does the existence of the problems not demonstate that that idea has failed in practice?
No, it doesn’t mean it has failed, it just means it alone is not sufficient. Just like how a century of american prosperity wasn’t solely due to gun rights.
Like many other laws and policies, 2nd amendment alone is not sufficient.
The better question to find the answer to your query is.
Is removing the 2nd amendment and gun rights going to magically save america and stop its marching decline?
> Is removing the 2nd amendment and gun rights going to magically save america and stop its marching decline?
> I don’t think so.
I don't think that's the right question at all.
I don't want to make changes to "magically save America and stop its marching decline" (whichever decline you happen to be peddling).
I want to make changes to get fewer people in America shot in the short-to-mid-term.
Do you still believe that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would hasten an American collapse? Because I haven't seen it effectively stop ANY so-called government overreach, and don't believe it will prevent any in the future either.
In the long-term, it also introduces its own existential risk: why should I assume "the citizens people with the most guns who do the best in a revolution" would institute a government better for me than the current American one?
Any armed militia (let alone a single citizen) would have no power to fight anything. A government army would crush them. Today, guns are mostly killing other law-abiding citizens: hence, they are the wrong approach to a 21st century society. 300 years ago, US people had to protect themselves (against all enemies, including their "government" of the time: the British army)
> Any armed militia (let alone a single citizen) would have no power to fight anything. A government army would crush them.
If this were true, then America wouldn’t have failed so badly in Afghanistan, guerilla tactics work. The objective isnt to defeat the military in a war, if that were possible it would lead to instability and random groups of americans from taking over the government anytime.
The objective is to give enough capabilities to everyday citizens to atleast be able to setup a resistance severe enough that no government would consider such an action.
For those abilities I think the liberties provided are helpful enough.
But I agree with you, there are far more dangerous instruments being used against common citizens now, that it makes people protecting themselves with guns a bad joke.
That calls for more policies to allow citizens to defend themselves, whether that’s a more robust education system to help citizens catch lying politicians, or a more robust system to bring in control the massive polarization spreading across all democracies, and defences against gutting out of the middle class that’s taking place.
But all of them call for more protections to be added, not existing ones to be removed
> If this were true, then America wouldn’t have failed so badly in Afghanistan, guerilla tactics work.
There is quite a gulf between making a democracy give up on occupying you (especially when the reasons for that occupation become kinda nebulous), and an internal rebellion or civil war.
Guerilla tactics are often successful in the former case. The latter situation is much more prevalent, and in most cases just devolves into long term suffering.
There will be no internal rebellion or civil war, if government actually works for its own people and serves them diligently.
More effort should be placed in helping people improve their lives, get access to healthcare, education, food, clean water, protect them from isolation and mental health issues, improve the civil discourse so people are kinder and gentler, more civil to each other.
The answer might not be present in taking people’s guns away or remove methods for people to protect themselves.
America has had a century of prosperity, while having the liberties to carry arms. You’re right a lot of democracies are right now at risk of an internal rebellion and civil war, including america. But the question is what caused it and how can we reverse the trend ? The answer surely cannot lie in removing something (gun rights) that was present even in years of prosperity.
The risk of foreign governments initiating civil war is real, and america itself has done this to other countries that once used to be democracies, civilians not having guns certainly didn’t prevent those civil wars, it’s not that difficult for nations to pump in guns to rebels and terrorists to cause instability in a nation. None of those countries had gun rights like america did, yet they all fell to civil wars.
The answer lies in government serving the people, and being afraid of the public.
Not in making gov fearless, and thus less concerned about working for the masses.
Think about it for a moment, you and I are worried about a civil war breaking out. Why ? Because the recent government on both party sides haven’t been too honest and diligent in working for the public.
Whether that’s in deteriorating public education, prospects of high tech jobs, destruction of good blue collar jobs for people to improve their lives without obscene college debt, bad healthcare policies.
These situations can only happen from an apathetic government structure that cares 0 about the masses.
How do you think, it’ll make those same governments more caring towards the public, by removing the first and second amendments ?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think gun rights are necessary or some messiah that’ll save mankind, I just don’t understand the obsession with trying to remove them.
I wasn't talking about what governments should and shouldn't do, or how they should behave. Or even anything US specific - I'm not American. I was just addressing the statement that guerilla tactics work and Afghanistan was the example cited. And I don't think Afghanistan is a good example in this case.
Guerillas fighting an occupier (especially a democratic one) have had a reasonable track record of success. Guerillas fighting their own government much less so - the world has been and still is littered with those conflicts. There's a big difference in what is at stake from someone who can just go home, and someone who is fighting for their own home/survival.
The point of armed citizens is not them winning a civil war, but making the restrictions politicians have to subject themselves to, to remain safe, sufficiently inconvenient.
No more cinema, golf, theater, water park, mountain hiking or yachting.
Not being able to take a walk within half a mile of your property's border, always waiting for security to check the cars you are about to use, often having them tell you that you cannot go to xyz, because they lack manpower (or whatever reason) to secure the routes.
Citizens having access to weapons is a deal with the politicians that their daily lifes will only be as great as those of their subjects.
As a non American, the expectation that your democracy only survives because your elected dictators-in-waiting are too scared to take the mask off is such a weird concept.
There are no (or very few) other democracies with that culture. From the outside, it seems that culture and those attitudes are more likely to erode your democracy than protect it. A tiny minority viewpoint could create that fear, get that protection enabled, and then you've lost that leverage over the politicians you're touting.
As democracies go, US politicians are already the most removed from contact with their citizens - it already seems like you're in a vicious circle here. Politicians fearing their citizens doesn't seem like a good basis to form a healthy democracy on.
Not all politicians are in DC. The US actually has a lot of local elections and votes. More than in many democracies. Yeah it doesn't get a lot of air time on CNN but local elections matter a lot in the US.
And yes, constitutions should be designed to keep representatives in check and afraid of messing with the people. A constitution should restrict the power of a government and empower the citizens.
It has been said many times before but tanks and planes cannot enforce a no-gathering order, they cannot stand on street corners enforcing curfews. Tanks and planes cannot defend the incredibly fragile (to attackers) US energy grid, which is too spread out and vulnerable to be defended by boots on the ground anyway. There's also the fact that a large amount of the US military would desert or defect from their posts if tasked with killing American citizens. Organized rebel groups would receive aid from our geopolitical adversaries, and the highways would be destroyed within weeks or months of the anarchy setting in. If the US ever suffered a civil war today, it would end as a country overnight, possibly permanently.
> There's also the fact that a large amount of the US military would desert or defect from their posts if tasked with killing American citizens.
I'm ex-military and I don't agree with this statement at all. It's even less clear when you look at the number of people involved in Jan 6 and their affiliation with police or military.
You can pull from history on what members of the U.S. military will do against their own citizens so long as those citizens are properly vilified.
Sentiment certainly would vary unit to unit, I work with a number of vets (mostly enlisted not commissioned so that might bias it a bit) and when I've asked them about it I've gotten various answers from "refusal of unlawful orders" to "sabotage and desert". I don't know if its all talk but I certainly never hope the chips are on the table to find out.
That, and one could make the case than countries with strict gub laws, and thus a theoretically less afraid government, actually serve their citizens better than US when it comes to stuff like education, health care, social security, housing and infrastructure. So I am not really sure the theory of an armed citizenry resulting in better government for the people actually holds water.
Yeah it's interesting that this is debated because we actually have real-world data on this. It's not like no country with relatively high indices of freedom and prosperity has ever instituted strict gun control.
> I don’t think its productive to look down on Cambodians as less civilised or believe in a sort of American exceptionalism, where things like the Cambodian genocide is not a possibility.
I think it's silly to pretend that different countries' institutions are all equivalent. Some have much more robust systems of checks and balances, justice systems, levels of corruption, etc. And no, it's not that Americans are 'more civilized' than Cambodians, it's just a byproduct of the circumstances of history that led to this point.
in fact, are not well equipped to protect anyone either. Police are minutes away once dispatched. Even upon arrival, they aren't required to put themselves in harm's way to save you, just hope to mitigate further damage to others around you.
