It was a terribly bad idea for the major tech platforms to go for the Trump ban right now. There’s a highy unstable force out there born specifically from the idea that they’re an oppressed and censored group of people, and this ban action is pouring a tanker of gasoline into an already raging bonfire.
I get why it had to be done; the general public has never had any regard for second-order effects and big tech will hardly risk their market cap. However, the big threat now is that these people will go out with a bang - literally.
I think that was already a big risk. I don't think the Twitter ban is going to change anything other than taking away a platform that is being used to spread misinformation, anger, and fear
I agree about the bad timing. They could have kept the accounts on, assigning a task force to review each post until 20th Jan. It looks to me like a symbolic gesture which is gonna fuel conspiracies and anger. I mean, the presidential account is still on so the guy is still able to tweet.
Exactly so. It would've been the smartest to clip the head off once the most momentum would have been blown off. That could've choked the entire movement.
The fact that I was heavily downvoted and flagged for stating the opinion speaks enough about what kind of knee-jerk reactions people are taking towards Trumpistas.
Other way round: they've been talking this stuff up for decades. This is just the continuation of Waco and Ruby Ridge and Malheur and those guys who tried to kidnap a governor and the guy who blew up a telephone exchange and a dozen ""lone wolf"" mass shooters. And the "killdozer" guy. Eventually all the thousands of ""lone wolves"" who share the same ideas and politics and gun suppliers were going to get together.
They're angry. They're always angry, that's their politics. Social media, talk radio, and the Republican party have been stoking that anger with lies. I agree that it's impossible to completely cut off the conduit of lies, but something has to be done - and deplatforming works.
To expand for you, Waco and Ruby Ridge were basically people disliking some aspects of the government living peacefully until the US attacked them. They are more like a catalyst for these events, many of those that ran in similar circles saw the need for more organization.
> Another man allegedly showed up in the nation's capital with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and told acquaintances that he wanted to shoot or run over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, prosecutors said.
Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation...
Every time gun regulation is brought up, conservatives claim the 2nd amendment is quite clear that guns are for revolution and that armed insurrection is somehow constitutional.
I think we're now seeing the logical conclusion of that.
You may well be right; senior dems have been too friendly with republicans as individuals for too long. Nothing ends that friendship like discovering them cheering on the people calling for your execution.
I hate that this is downvoted, because it's so clearly true. There is a heavily armed, deeply mistrustful subculture in this country that has been TRAINED by its leaders (including most of the now-minority party) that it is going to need to overthrow the government someday.
And they tried. Last Wednesday. What happens when they succeed?
Now, to be fair: I don't think guns (as machines) are the core problem here. Removing the guns doesn't remove the domestic terrorists. But nonetheless gun culture is part and parcel of the right wing terror we just saw, and that needs to be fixed.
I think what you mean by "gun culture" is more "tacticool culture" which interests a sub set of firearms owners. I agree that this is a problematic culture, but it's not the dominant culture. A large number if not most gun owners including myself own firearms for lawful self defense, hunting, sport, or job related duties (eg ranching, security) and have no interest in running around in plate armor or joining a militia. While I acknowledge that my firearms could help me if a revolution were to break out, that is not why I bought them, it's not what I'm interested in, and I sincerely hope to never have to use them in that context.
It is worth noting that by constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people and spewing poorly researched nonsense, certain gun control advocates such as some in this very thread do a wonderful job of alienating all firearms owners and generating sympathy among the moderates who would otherwise support thoughtful regulation for members interested in these tacticool endeavors.
I see the distinction you're making, but... I know a bunch of gun owners too, and the overlap is very substantial. It's all the same people, really. Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism.
> constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people
And see... this sort of defensiveness is why we can't solve this. I know it doesn't seem like that to you, but by refusing to call these people out and instead hitting back with statements like that, you are circling the wagons with the terrorists.
I don't know how to fix this if you won't meet the rest of us half way.
> Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism.
No, they don't.
Maybe all the ones you know do, but any individuals circle of familiarity probably isn't representative.
And again, I cite the fact that you're getting defensive about attempts to call out this "tacticool"[1] subculture as dangerous instead of joining in the denunciation along with the rest of us as evidence that you associate more with their ideals than you may want to admit.
If it's a problematic subculture it should be a problem, and not dismissed. I don't see that happening from anywhere on the right.
[1] To pick the term above, which seems like a horrifying euphemism to my ears. But let's go with it.
How can I meet people half way when they have no interest in respecting me or meeting me half way? Many people view guns as inherently evil, view me as inherently evil for possessing them, and explicitly say they want to ban all firearms / there is no legitimate use case for firearms full stop. It's very difficult to take a moderate stance with such people when they are trying to shout me down and are demanding capitulation rather than moderation.
> I know a bunch of gun owners too, and the overlap is very substantial. It's all the same people, really. Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism.
QED, you make unfounded and sweeping generalizations and then are surprised when people get defensive. When you employ rhetoric such as this, opponents will fight you just to do it.
1. As I stated above, I believe there is a militant faction of gun owners who are doing the community and the nation a disservice. I do not agree with their views, do not support them, and believe they should be monitored.
2. As an owner, I believe we need to make the following changes to gun regulation:
* We need a universal regulatory floor consisting of background checks, licensing, and training for ownership of any class of firearm.
* We should probably have some sort of red flag rule set to allow seizure of firearms if there is strong evidence that you are conspiring to commit a crime or are unstable.
* We need to standardize on what constitutes reasonable concealed carry as right now the state reciprocity rules are ridiculous. I shouldn't need 4-5 licenses to be able to possess firearms across the US, let alone concealed carry.
* We need to shift to computerized record keeping at the ATF, and all transactions need to be reported to the ATF. This would allow ATF to perform data mining to go after people making large straw purchases for resale here or transport to Mexico. This is where most guns being used illegally are coming from. If guns supposedly owned by you start showing up at crime scenes, someone should be able to flag that trivially and start asking questions about it. If you are buying 10 new firearms every few weeks, that should be investigated. There are ways we could implement this which protect individual privacy.
* It should be illegal to bring guns to a protest, and open carry in most situations should be banned as it makes people less safe, including the owners.
Those are the changes that I believe would have a meaningful impact on gun related violence. I do not believe assault weapons bans, magazine size limits, removal of "assault features", or other such regulations are necessary or particularly helpful as they largely only inhibit individuals who are trying to use their gun in legal self defense. These types of weapons are also relatively rarely used in gun violence, with pistols and shotguns contributing overwhelming to gun related homicides in the US.
As for how you deal with the cultural issues among some owners, I have no idea how to tackle that other than to open reasonable dialog and expose them to additional moderate owners.
US citizens can’t have M16s or AK-47s as automatic rifles illegal. Sure you can buy a pre-ban (made before 1986) automatic rifle if you have $30,000 and go through a special/long ATF process.
They charged him with illegal possession of the guns though.
It wouldn't make a difference in this case. He's not some kid in HS. He's a 70 year old man. He could easily obtain a hunting rifle (say in case you ban all other guns) and it would be just as effective for this purpose.
Don't get confused by the terms. They are both 100% deadly. Both come in semi-automatic configuration as well.
The only difference is that hunting rifles typically have low capacity magazines whereas assault rifles have high capacity magazines.
EDIT: In case you are talking about types of ammunition, it's true that anti-human ammunition is more deadly. But I am not sure it makes that much of a difference because hunting ammunition is already deadly enough.
And selective fire. If it comes only in semi-auto configuration, as all legal AR-15 type rifles do, it's not an assault rifle.
U.S. legislators are fond of using the deliberately similar sounding and confusing term "assault weapon" to refer to any rifle with military-style features.
Automatic fire other than for suppression isn’t effective if you want to kill people semi vs auto won’t make a big difference neither is 10 vs 30 rounds.
This is the problem with the gun control debate you either control all of them or none of them.
The assault weapons ban did absolutely squat to prevent gun violence in the US.
Being able to attach a bayonet or having to pin and weld a flash suppressor I mean sorry compensator or w/e they’ll call it to pass the requirements isn’t going to make a gun less deadly.
Honestly I don’t know what can be done in the US at this point there’s more guns than people, and despite the so called ammo shortages there are probably enough rounds out there to kill every person on the planet 10 times over.
There little that any gun control legislation other than a complete ban and confiscation campaign could do.
This is because if you look at gun violence you see essentially two groups neither of which could be prevented by stricter gun legislation.
One is people committing crimes/homicide with legally purchased firearms and passing all checks including any additional checks that any “sensible” gun legislation would introduce.
The other are people who obtain guns illegally by stealing them or buying them on the black or grey markets.
More background checks won’t stop them, especially not in the near term until guns become prohibitively expensive for most criminals to obtain but without confiscation that isn’t likely to happen.
There’s still gun violence in the UK as far as criminals go but that’s mostly limited to organized crime vs organized crime incidents other than that and the Irish border conflict related violence you can rally only get the odd crank that finds grandpa’s old shotgun with a few 50 year old hunting rounds.
Common criminals can’t afford to buy guns in the UK and many of them don’t want anything to do with firearms because of the response it would trigger.
You're more likely to survive an assault rifle round than hunting rifle.
Hunting rifles are often a larger caliber and are designed to kill with one shot from a much further distance. Assault rifles are designed to disperse many smaller rounds, rapidly, from a closer range.
I think you should question your surety. Most states ban modern day assault rifle calibers for hunting deer because they are too small in diameter to do enough damage and deliver a humane kill. Hunting calibers (.308, .243 win, 30.06) are much larger and more powerful than the 5.56/5.45 the modern M4-pattern and AK74 use.
In addition, per wartime regulations the worlds armies are only allowed to use FMJ which leaves a much smaller wound channel. Hunting rounds are typically soft point or hollow point and expand on impact to leave a much larger wound channel to increase the likelihood of a humane kill.
It’s a bit silly while it’s technically correct that expanding munitions were banned by the 1899 Hague convention modern hollow points could probably be fine, especially the fragmenting ones.
The reason these aren’t widely adopted isn’t because of any convention as these hardly stop anyone during war time, but because they aren’t as useful as you think for military purposes.
Armor piercing incendiary and high explosive incendiary rounds are used and I rather get show with a hollow point than an HE round.
The Soviets during WW2 used HE rounds as sniper munitions.
That’s not how these things work, “assault rifles” aren’t rail guns.
Assault rifle was a nomenclature for smaller caliber rifles capable of both automatic and semi automatic fire that were designed to be used in an “assault” as in more mobile and rapidly advancing combat.
“Battle rifles” were defined as large caliber designed for more long range engagements and being primarily fired form stationary positions.
Arguably the first modern assault rifle was the M1 Carbine during WW2 it was essentially in the middle between a machine pistol/sub machine gun and a rifle.
When the “assault rifles” we know today were being designed the inspiration for them was many of the same hunting and sporter rifles and cartridges you want to get shot with.
5.56 NATO is based on the .223 Remington a hunting cartridge in fact the AR-15 predates the M-16.
You clearly don’t know anything about firearms. An “assault” rifle bullet/round (5.56mm/0.223) is smaller and less powerful than a typical hunting rifle (7.62mm/0.308) round.
“Assault” rifles aren’t designed to blow your anyone’s leg off.
This sort of denying all the technology in assault weapons to maximize destruction. It's the kinetic energy, the design of the bullet, there's recoil mitigation, bullet cavitation, etc. They are weapons designed to reduce the amount of effort required to stop people, permanently.
(I'm not a gun nut but I am a physics nerd, so i read up on how assault weapons differ from more conventional hunting weapons. Note that many people hunt using assault rifles now).
The hunters I know who use AR15s for hunting (I think it's elk, not deer) are ex-snipers.
Nothing about my message should suggest anything about the humanity of using assault rifles to hunt deer. It's entirely about being factual about the nature of assault weapons, which some gun nuts seem to intentionally deny.
Please explain how a cartridge with less powder ends up generating more kinetic energy. Alternatively, explain how it's worse to have less kinetic energy.
Assault rifles were designed to allow soldiers to carry more bullets. It started with the Germans in WWII, who found that with mechanized warfare, infantry engagements were at closer range so they didn't need big heavy cartridges anymore.
Note that the .30-06 is a hunting cartridge today but it was also used in the main American battle rifle in WWII, the Springfield 1903. There's also the .308 which is commonly used in hunting and also various military battle rifles and sniper rifles. No infantry soldier would claim either is less effective than the 5.56.
If forced into a firefight, I'd prefer to face the hunting rifle, as the term (in most of the World) generally refers to a bolt action rifle. However, if I had to actually take a bullet, I'd prefer it to be from an assault rifle any day of the week.
Assault rifles generally fire either 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 - intermediate rounds than are unlawful for use in hunting most game because they are unlikely to kill the animal, at least quickly.
Hunting rifles are going to (except for varmint hunting) generally use much bigger, much more powerful rounds such as the .308 Winchester. It is much more likely to kill you (and much, much more likely to blow off an extremity if hit there) than an intermediate cartridge fired from an assault rifle.
Actually hunting rifles are typically a larger caliber than assault rifles. The AR-15 for example uses .223 (or the equivalent 5.56mm), which is one of the smallest rounds for centerfire rifles. Here's a visual comparison of various rifle rounds and what game they're good for:
> I'm pretty sure I'd rather be shot by a hunting rifle than an assault rifle. Hunting rifles aren't designed to blow a deer's leg off.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. IIRC, hunting rifles typically have more powerful cartridges (~bullets).
IIRC, typical military cartridges have been getting less and less powerful since WWII, because they make automatic fire possible and allow soldiers to carry more ammo.
The reality is, in almost every place on Earth a person that is intent on getting a gun will get a gun.
If you want to do a crime with a gun, you definitely don't want a legal one. That's just stupid.
And people intent on doing crimes most of the time don't really need guns for it, it is just suspicious to carry a gun around and if you are doing something shady you want to bring as little suspicion as possible. And adds charges for illegal gun possession in case you are caught with one.
Gun regulation is mostly to stop stupid people act stupidly with a gun they already lawfully own, to stop people who for various reasons shouldn't own a gun from owning one legally and also to cool down the police so that it doesn't feel it has to shoot suspects on sight. (Notice stress on the word "feel")
I am all for gun regulation, I just feel it is a bad example for regulation.
> Gun regulation is mostly to stop stupid people act stupidly with a gun they already lawfully own
If you make guns easier to get, you end up with more of these cases. You also end up making it easier for people to unlawfully get access to a gun. In Australia you have to be a reasonably "hard" criminal to get access to a gun illegally. There just aren't that many guns around since the Port Arthur massacre, and gun deaths have decreased as you'd naturally expect.
Do you know how many guns I saw in my life that did not belong to a uniformed or undercover Police officer, soldier guarding an embassy or security guard guarding taking money to or from ATM?
Exactly zero. And I am 38.
Here in Poland it is quite difficult to get a gun. Basically, you need exceptional circumstances to be allowed to own one and even then you are not allowed to just carry it around.
There are people who own a gun but most of them, from what I understand, will not take it anywhere.
Do people get beaten or stabbed here like in US? Sure. There's just no guns involved even for the ones that do own gun legally, because they would prefer to get beaten than bring out a gun.
Because of gun regulation, people learned to not consider guns to be a solution to their problems. Maybe if they fear their house might get robbed rather than buy a gun they will put bars on their windows and better security system.
And I strongly feel that this also affects you if you own a gun, in that it causes you to think more critically rather than just whip out a gun when you think a little bit threatened.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted when it is a proven fact with hard data to back it.
I sometimes wish people should be required to post when downvoting to explain their point.
The data also shows that for every person that has saved themselves or some other person there are many, many people that died due to an accident or a conflict escalating due to a gun present.
> And I strongly feel that this also affects you if you own a gun, in that it causes you to think more critically rather than just whip out a gun when you think a little bit threatened.
It’s not legal in the US to “whip out a gun” if you feel a little threatened. You must literally fear for your life for you to use deadly force.
This had nothing to do with gun control however. The stand your ground rules (different in each state) pertain to use of deadly force (using any kind of weapon, including your fists.)
Again you can not brandish (“parade”) a gun without a lawful reason.
I have a concealed carry permit in a state that allows open carry. I have no interest in drawing attention to myself. Nor would I draw my weapon without real fear for my life. Beyond the fact that I would hurt someone, which I am not interested in doing if there’s a viable alternative, the costs of defending yourself (lawyers, probably losing my job, etc) after a shooting would bankrupt most people.
For me, the idea of using a gun is as the last line of defense.
>I have a concealed carry permit in a state that allows open carry.... Nor would I draw my weapon without real fear for my life
Does it make you sad or disappointed you feel the need to carry a gun in your regular life just to feel safe and secure in your society?
I've lived ~20 years in Canad and ~20 in Australia. My sister has lived ~20 in Australia and ~20 in the UK. The idea we would ever, ever feel the need to carry a gun is preposterous.
The number of handguns either of us has seen in those countries in our life is exactly zero.
I've spent time in 55 countries around the world, including almost all of Latin America and Africa, and I have never once felt the need for a firearm.
The idea of living in a place where I feel the need to carry a lethal weapon is extremely hard to grasp. It's hard for me to read your comment and not think something is very wrong with a society when regular, peaceful and intelligent citizens feel the need to carry a firearm.
FWIW, I own a hunting rifle here in Canada (.30/06, Remmington 700) and I enjoy hunting very much.
People say they need guns for defense. I can empathize with this, but I also understand that is just because there are other stupid people around carrying guns. There would not be a problem if nobody around had a gun.
In countries like that there are outlets for people to be able to shoot guns. In Poland you can go to a shooting range and you can also get a permit for hunting or sport rifle. In either case the use of the gun is restricted so that general population doesn't have to worry about being around people with guns.
I never felt a need to have a gun, ever. You don't have to worry about stupid entitled people either, they are harmless.
> I also understand that is just because there are other stupid people around carrying guns.
Your understanding is incorrect. I don't carry a gun because I fear others have guns at all. You all seem to think that a gun is the only way that someone can hurt you. When I was a younger man I was the victim of an attempted car-jacking. Fortunately quick thinking got me out of that situation. Regardless of whether this individual attempting to steal my car with me in it had a gun or not, he was physically larger than me and would have caused me harm (I did not grow up learning to fight.)
The idea of other people having guns is not the primary reason I carry. I'm happy for you that you never felt the need to carry a gun. I'd rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one. I respect your opinion, but the fact is we all have different, valid life experiences that affect our behavior and actions. I feel safe not carrying (I don't live in a warzone,) but I feel much safer carrying when and where I can lawfully do so.
> FWIW, I own a hunting rifle here in Canada (.30/06, Remmington 700) and I enjoy hunting very much.
It's funny, I think hunting is pretty inhumane (though I understand the need to manage the population, etc.) I'm not an advocate for making it illegal, it's just not for me.
That's how I feel how guns should be looked at. If you don't want to own/carry a gun, that's your business - but don't try to stop me from doing so based on your preferences/opinions. Do guns wind up getting used to hurt people illegally - certainly. So do a lot of other things (alcohol, knives, vehicles, etc.) We don't ban them, we simply regulate them. We already have plenty of gun laws, and most people (99.999%) are law-abiding citizens.
I understand what you're saying, but you didn't answer my question.
Are you disappointed or sad that you should need/want to carry a gun in your daily life?
Are you happy your kids will live like that?
I just... I just, feel like that's a really sad state of affairs, and it would be something I'd much rather work to get away from. I see it like having to build shelters for the homeless, or having safe injecting rooms - they're good stop-gap measures and help society, but the goal is to fix the problem so they aren't needed long-long term.
The reality is that significant part of population is stupid. Effective gun control as it is implemented in many countries aims to exclude stupid people from owning guns as much as possible by requiring that you have real, strong, certified need to carry a gun.
People who own a gun in such countries know exactly why they own a gun. In any of those countries you would very unlikely be allowed a permit.
For example, here in Poland there are only two reasons for getting firearms permit: constant, hightened danger to your own life or when your actual job is to protect other people. In both cases the reason must be proven and documented.
My interpretation is different. I think that most of the people who rioted at the Capitol aren't hardened criminals who deduced that they require a gun to most efficiently achieve their ends. I think they're random people who have some image in their heads of "gun + flag = American patriot", and the rather frictionless process for obtaining a gun in America means they can fulfill that image pretty much on a whim.
I think we underrate the influence that small frictions in a process can have.
Bad example. At least this guy brought a truck with explosive and illegal guns. Doesn't seem like another stupid person that decided to bring their gun on an impulse.
Good luck getting a gun in (say) Japan or Singapore. Possession of a single unauthorized bullet is up to 7 years in jail; using an unauthorized gun while committing a crime is punished with death.
Singapore is a special outlier case, most people can't even legally own a car there.
Japan has extremely small homicide rate, regardless of whether involving a gun. So it makes sense to disallow owning a gun because there isn't really need to own one. And the low homicide rate is not a result of gun regulation.
> Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation...
I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need license to keep and/or carry a firearm. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective.
It's a failsafe to have a chance to fight in case the government and enough of its military and commanders become tyrannical.
Different systems (democratic vs. tyrannical) have a different spread of when and how violence occurs. Gun violence, which can be lessened in America once adequate policy is in place to prevent dis-progression and heal mind-body-soul vs. genocide by CCP of specific population who didn't want to fall in line with CCP rule.
I actually agree that the 2nd amendment exists for this purpose (protect against a tyrannical government) and think that is a good thing. An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke. Futile. Even the most practiced and prepared "militias" would fairly quickly be put down if the full might and focus of the US military where to be trained on them. The most a militia could hope for in such a scenario would be a guerilla warfare style protracted conflict combined with broadcasting a message that would win over the hearts and minds of the general public, that would then cause the US military to stop due to political, not military reasons. But such an outcome is unlikely in the scenario you're presenting, because the military would be controlled by a tyrant, not the public.
One thing to note is that under current law you cannot stockpile weapons. And you cannot create bio weapons or cyber weapons. You have no access to massive bombs. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion, has become an excuse for individual to own weapons that are dangerous to private citizens and the safety of the public but of no consequence in a fight against a tyrannical government.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Note the "a well regulated Militia" and "a free State"
Militia is capitalized. As is State. In politics (and generally internationally "State" has a very different meaning than is commonly used in the USA (in modern times, the founding fathers used it more in line with the way international law understands it to mean). To keep it short, the National Guard, again in my opinion, very effectively fulfills the purposed intended of this amendment. It is a well regulated militia that the State can direct to mount an effective defense against a tyrannical Federal government.
If you call that an "effective" defense, yeah idk what to say. We went in there with impunity, didn't even use the full capabilities of our forces, changed their government, killed over a hundred thousand of people, destroyed their economy, incapacitated their military... So can one individual cause a little damage to the US military? Sure. I wouldn't call it effective by any measure.
There’s no law banning the “stockpiling” of weapons in any locale of the United States or at the federal level. You can own hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and handguns even in places like NYC as long as you purchase/possess/register the guns in accordance with all local laws.
I should have said "effectively". There is no law saying that explicitly, however, try stockpiling 1000 weapons of the same sort in a manner not meant to be difficult to be noticed and see how long it takes for you to be on someones radar.
It wouldn't be 100% of the military that would likely fall to tyranny or be controlled by a tyrant - there would be splintering and sides taken, who then can support and organize civilian militias.
There's really too much nuance and variables to argue this easily such as state of society, how rich or impoverished they are, how healthy or unhealthy they are - including their education - how open their heart and mind is, and so on.
A strong stable or stabilizing system - democracy in this case - that is capable of returning to the homeostasis with a forward-evolving movement will take an impressive attack to knock it down.
Of course there are bad actors who are trying to do such a thing, and due to all factors Biden won the election - and the Democrats won the Senate as well - so they can implement policy without being blocked by Republicans (nor extorted by giving $ trillions to corporations leveraging the need for stimulus-survival cheques) - and hopefully they implement new policies that will strengthen America and its democracy.
I believe Andrew Yang's core policies are the answer to breaking apart the duopoly and taking away the amalgamated power of the small handful of mainstream media channels (TV and newspapers) that amplify and support the duopoly: Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, and Government Healthcare Option ("Medicare For All") to compete against the status quo - so people can become healthy and do their best to prevent dis-ease.
I agree with you that the State is an additional layer to reduce, limit, de-risk the potential of tyranny - perhaps then private gun ownership then becomes a layer against each State potentially becoming tyrannical, and if the State starts clamping down on people with bad behaviour - control-oppression-violence - to too severe of a degree, then arguably people will start moving to another State that is in line with their own values.
It's all about organization, alignment, and readying for defending against the different layers of potential conflict - whether citizen to citizen, citizen to State, citizen to Federal, State to Federal, Federal to Federal - the fight for democracy-freedom vs. tyranny, globally.
Edit to add: It's important when reasoning to understand how these situations unfold - they don't happen overnight and there is time to organize. There will be peak moments that act as signals - whether things are evolving or devolving: Biden was elected is one signal from one side, the continued attempted coup the other day, where sadly a handful of people died, is another signal from the side; like the genocide of Uighurs in China by the CCP is a signal from one side, on global scale. Generally the side that acts first in a physical violence means will be the less rational one, more aggressive and using anger which will blind them to some degree - "blind rage." This is why economic pressure via multi-lateral trade agreements between Democracies is the best starting solution - and with other policy can quickly reenforce the internal strength of those currently leaking economic value, ROI et al, to a bad actor who won't fall in line with freedom, health, non-violence, and so on; none of this is to say the US isn't guilty in some areas of unnecessary violence.
You might change your mind if you’ve ever had someone try to break into your home at 3am. Happened when I was a kid. Fortunately my father had a lowly 0.22 rifle. The sight of the rifle in my fathers’s hands was enough to convince them to leave.
My father is as left-leaning as they come (and an Italian immigrant) but he knew even then that the police can’t always protect you.
Yeah, I hear about a lot of examples like yours. I have an air rifle laying around somewhere, maybe that could scare someone off :D
I was raised by the standards of "Talk or Run away", and I want to adhere to them. But I don't live in the US and in my country I don't have to be afraid to be home-invaded, especially not with guns.
I see that some people "need" guns, I just don't want that as a pacifist. To each their own I guess ;)
I don't get why there is a need in a city, but there are definitely wilderness places in the US where it is required. What's wacky is that nobody can see this difference when laws get passed.
Parent's post is correctly insinuating that it's city people assuming their context is universal and trying to regulate as such. The state wide restrictions are non-sensical for rural environments in states like CA and MA.
why? Because the history books and graveyards (marked and unmarked) are full of examples of hundreds of millions of unarmed powerless peoples being marched off to their deaths by power-hungry dictators and their supporters. The authors of the American political system were exceedingly well educated and understood that a new American constitutional republic experiment where the people held the power would revert to a dictatorship unless the people themselves had some mechanism to retain authority. In addition to the checks and balances in the government, a large part of that authority is established (and guaranteed) through the availability of militarily-useful firearms as a last resort.
I guess the first problem is, that I am not from the US.
What you write makes sense, but it seems weird to me to justify having guns with a hypothetical, apocalyptical scenario. Sounds a bit like fear-mongering to me.
Yes, it is precisely a cultural thing. America was formed as colonies declaring war against the strongest empire on earth, refusing to be ruled by a King and both occupied locally and abused from afar. The US Constitution and the balance of power between the three branches is designed to prevent consolidation of power in any one person because the government gains it's authority from the consent of the governed. (the people) And yes, as a final check against abuse of that power, the people have the means to overthrow. It is essential if free people are to remain free.
Most things seem hypothetical until they happen. Hundreds of millions of dead souls in the last century died from what was (at the time) a "hypothetical, apocalyptical scenario." And not only the death camps - think of how many people started their day normally, never knowing they would be murdered by a government by nightfall. History repeats itself so long as the basic flaws of human nature persist - and they will.
Try being a 5' 100# woman walking home alone at night. Technology, in the form of a reliable and compact weapon, is the best way for her to bridge the very real divide of physical size and strength against her most likely attacker.
I know it's 2021 and it's sacrilege to even mention that men and women differ in very real and impactful ways, but.. there it is.
The way you phrased this is funny because it can be interpreted as either a pro gun or anti gun statement:
1. Civilians should be able to keep or carry a firearm without a license.
2. No civilian should be able to keep or carry a firearm.
In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns, rifles, or shotguns except in the more restrictive states. And each year more and more states are trending towards being able to carry without a permit as well.
> In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns...
Now I understand why police in the USA is so aggressive when they expect citizens to be armed. People are talking 'defund police' while problem lies in Constitution.
What is your definition of sensible gun regulation in your opinion? Chances are this man bought them legally. He broke the law by bringing guns into DC which I believe are more heavily regulated/restricted.
Sadly no, but to quote Dave Chappelle “let’s arm every legally eligible black people in this country with assault rifles, congress would change the 2nd over night”. I had a great laugh watching that episode.
> Police found pickup truck full of bombs and guns near Capitol
The media is just shameless with their lying. They were bottles full of fuel. Commonly called Molotov Cocktails by anyone who's watched an action movie.
BLM also used Molotov Cocktails, can't remember them being called bombs, because that would be a lie I guess.
> Coffman, 70, told police he had mason jars filled with "melted Styrofoam and gasoline." Federal investigators believe that combination, if exploded, would have the effect of napalm "insofar as it causes the flammable liquid to better stick to objects that it hits upon detonation," according to the court record.
> Police also found cloth rags and lighters. The court documents said that those items and the explosive-filled mason jars "in close proximity to one another constitute a combination of parts" that could be used as a "destructive device."
I don't think the article is disagreeing with you.
Also, a Molotov cocktail is commonly referred to as a type of bomb:
> A Molotov cocktail, also known as a petrol bomb, gasoline bomb, bottle bomb, poor man's grenade, fire bomb (not to be confused with an actual fire bomb), fire bottle or just Molotov, sometimes shortened as Molly, is a generic name used for a variety of bottle-based improvised incendiary weapons.
> told police he had mason jars filled with "melted Styrofoam and gasoline." Federal investigators believe that combination, if exploded, would have the effect of napalm "insofar as it causes the flammable liquid to better stick to objects that it hits upon detonation," according to the court record.
That’s the recipe for napalm in the old Anarchist’s Handbook. I don’t recall it working very well.
BLM did not use Molotov cocktails. BLM is largely-non-violent. BLM was not the only faction involved in this summer's protests, and even in the cases of major property damage that did occur, were not the perpetrators.
Interestingly these do use the term bomb and explosive which contradict the comment you originally replied to. But it is true they are mere footnote stories.
I feel like this is the equivalent of a guy showing up to a party of people he doesn’t know that well. Brings a drink in and then if the party gets going he’s like “don’t worry I have a lots more in the car” to make friends. Except in this case it’s a weapons cache and obviously incredibly disturbing.
That’s a very true statement. I feel like they have them there just in case things ratchet up. Even though things got way way way out of control - I’m curious if had the capitol police been armed there might have been a bigger confrontation with more casualties. I’m in the highly speculative category here.
The most surprising thing to me is that despite guns on both sides there were only 4 deaths.
I guess that either both the police did very well their jobs (after the fact) and/or the 'insurgents' (almost) only had their guns as symbols and/or there was a lot of luck involved.
I think a contributing factor is that the police knew that these protesters would be heavily armed and dangerous and so were reluctant to escalate the situation. Unlike with BLM where they could happily curbstomp them with no consequences.
The point seems to be to harden the people involved, to commit further to the cause later. While this was going on, senators were called and asked to change their vote.
As riot raged at Capitol, Trump tried to call senators to overturn election
Not to mention those that will result from COVID branching out from this event. Which - while less related - when considering the actions of the instigator are certainly notable.
DC has a ton of security, and it's basically only legal for them to possess the guns. Carrying guns openly in this area would lead to a quick arrest.
So - I think you're right that there was a lot of luck, but also there was a lot of preparation.
"God has a special provenance that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America"
-Otto von Bismark
I keep returning to that quote in these days at it's so apt even hundreds of years later. The Capitol insurrection could have been sooo much worse. Only a handful of deaths resulted. That's incredulous for such an event. That a fire-bug didn't get in there and light the whole place up is incredible. That all of Congress was evacuated safely and stayed safe despite seditionists actively trying to lynch them, is amazing in the true sense of the word. The damage to the building itself was minimal, the art and statues are mostly intact, just unbelievable stuff. That despite saying he was going with them, Donny stayed at the WH and just watched the TV. Literally every other autocrat in history would have gone down to the floor of the House and declared themselves King. I cannot think of any other example where the tyrant did not do this (Sulla, but not really even then).
The US got so incredibly lucky in this that Bismark's quote is the only thing that makes sense to me.
Very true, but the effects will be muted as compared to the 37th of December (because 2020 didn't stop), I feel. The leaders of the movements have been identified and are pretty isolated as compared to federal law enforcement. The incoming USAGs are more than ready to make names for themselves in the prosecution of the insurrection. Combined with plea deals that can help expose their networks, I think that armed insurrection in a mass scale is not going to be as threatening. However, McVeigh style attacks are still a very very serious threat, I think.
134 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 220 ms ] threadRepublican AGs group sent robocalls urging march to the Capitol
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-ags-group-se...
I get why it had to be done; the general public has never had any regard for second-order effects and big tech will hardly risk their market cap. However, the big threat now is that these people will go out with a bang - literally.
The fact that I was heavily downvoted and flagged for stating the opinion speaks enough about what kind of knee-jerk reactions people are taking towards Trumpistas.
They're angry. They're always angry, that's their politics. Social media, talk radio, and the Republican party have been stoking that anger with lies. I agree that it's impossible to completely cut off the conduit of lies, but something has to be done - and deplatforming works.
One of them was a retired USAF senior officer: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9128637/MAGA-mob-ri...
That's not an oppressed and censored person, that's a power hungry person trying to conduct his own little military coup.
There is a similar link from the New Yorker which is considered a reliable source:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-air-force-combat...
You clearly don't know very much about the facts of either of those events. I suggest you do some reading.
Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation...
I think we're now seeing the logical conclusion of that.
You may well be right; senior dems have been too friendly with republicans as individuals for too long. Nothing ends that friendship like discovering them cheering on the people calling for your execution.
And they tried. Last Wednesday. What happens when they succeed?
Now, to be fair: I don't think guns (as machines) are the core problem here. Removing the guns doesn't remove the domestic terrorists. But nonetheless gun culture is part and parcel of the right wing terror we just saw, and that needs to be fixed.
It is worth noting that by constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people and spewing poorly researched nonsense, certain gun control advocates such as some in this very thread do a wonderful job of alienating all firearms owners and generating sympathy among the moderates who would otherwise support thoughtful regulation for members interested in these tacticool endeavors.
> constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people
And see... this sort of defensiveness is why we can't solve this. I know it doesn't seem like that to you, but by refusing to call these people out and instead hitting back with statements like that, you are circling the wagons with the terrorists.
I don't know how to fix this if you won't meet the rest of us half way.
No, they don't.
Maybe all the ones you know do, but any individuals circle of familiarity probably isn't representative.
If it's a problematic subculture it should be a problem, and not dismissed. I don't see that happening from anywhere on the right.
[1] To pick the term above, which seems like a horrifying euphemism to my ears. But let's go with it.
> I know a bunch of gun owners too, and the overlap is very substantial. It's all the same people, really. Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism.
QED, you make unfounded and sweeping generalizations and then are surprised when people get defensive. When you employ rhetoric such as this, opponents will fight you just to do it.
I don't. Can you meet me half way?
1. As I stated above, I believe there is a militant faction of gun owners who are doing the community and the nation a disservice. I do not agree with their views, do not support them, and believe they should be monitored.
2. As an owner, I believe we need to make the following changes to gun regulation:
* We need a universal regulatory floor consisting of background checks, licensing, and training for ownership of any class of firearm.
* We should probably have some sort of red flag rule set to allow seizure of firearms if there is strong evidence that you are conspiring to commit a crime or are unstable.
* We need to standardize on what constitutes reasonable concealed carry as right now the state reciprocity rules are ridiculous. I shouldn't need 4-5 licenses to be able to possess firearms across the US, let alone concealed carry.
* We need to shift to computerized record keeping at the ATF, and all transactions need to be reported to the ATF. This would allow ATF to perform data mining to go after people making large straw purchases for resale here or transport to Mexico. This is where most guns being used illegally are coming from. If guns supposedly owned by you start showing up at crime scenes, someone should be able to flag that trivially and start asking questions about it. If you are buying 10 new firearms every few weeks, that should be investigated. There are ways we could implement this which protect individual privacy.
* It should be illegal to bring guns to a protest, and open carry in most situations should be banned as it makes people less safe, including the owners.
Those are the changes that I believe would have a meaningful impact on gun related violence. I do not believe assault weapons bans, magazine size limits, removal of "assault features", or other such regulations are necessary or particularly helpful as they largely only inhibit individuals who are trying to use their gun in legal self defense. These types of weapons are also relatively rarely used in gun violence, with pistols and shotguns contributing overwhelming to gun related homicides in the US.
As for how you deal with the cultural issues among some owners, I have no idea how to tackle that other than to open reasonable dialog and expose them to additional moderate owners.
Assault rifles? What does a US citizen need an M16 for? An AK47? Makes no sense.
Which is bad.
Edit: lots of potential murderers here?
It wouldn't make a difference in this case. He's not some kid in HS. He's a 70 year old man. He could easily obtain a hunting rifle (say in case you ban all other guns) and it would be just as effective for this purpose.
EDIT: In case you are talking about types of ammunition, it's true that anti-human ammunition is more deadly. But I am not sure it makes that much of a difference because hunting ammunition is already deadly enough.
U.S. legislators are fond of using the deliberately similar sounding and confusing term "assault weapon" to refer to any rifle with military-style features.
This is the problem with the gun control debate you either control all of them or none of them.
The assault weapons ban did absolutely squat to prevent gun violence in the US.
Being able to attach a bayonet or having to pin and weld a flash suppressor I mean sorry compensator or w/e they’ll call it to pass the requirements isn’t going to make a gun less deadly.
Honestly I don’t know what can be done in the US at this point there’s more guns than people, and despite the so called ammo shortages there are probably enough rounds out there to kill every person on the planet 10 times over.
There little that any gun control legislation other than a complete ban and confiscation campaign could do.
This is because if you look at gun violence you see essentially two groups neither of which could be prevented by stricter gun legislation.
One is people committing crimes/homicide with legally purchased firearms and passing all checks including any additional checks that any “sensible” gun legislation would introduce.
The other are people who obtain guns illegally by stealing them or buying them on the black or grey markets.
More background checks won’t stop them, especially not in the near term until guns become prohibitively expensive for most criminals to obtain but without confiscation that isn’t likely to happen.
There’s still gun violence in the UK as far as criminals go but that’s mostly limited to organized crime vs organized crime incidents other than that and the Irish border conflict related violence you can rally only get the odd crank that finds grandpa’s old shotgun with a few 50 year old hunting rounds.
Common criminals can’t afford to buy guns in the UK and many of them don’t want anything to do with firearms because of the response it would trigger.
Hunting rifles are often a larger caliber and are designed to kill with one shot from a much further distance. Assault rifles are designed to disperse many smaller rounds, rapidly, from a closer range.
In addition, per wartime regulations the worlds armies are only allowed to use FMJ which leaves a much smaller wound channel. Hunting rounds are typically soft point or hollow point and expand on impact to leave a much larger wound channel to increase the likelihood of a humane kill.
The reason these aren’t widely adopted isn’t because of any convention as these hardly stop anyone during war time, but because they aren’t as useful as you think for military purposes.
Armor piercing incendiary and high explosive incendiary rounds are used and I rather get show with a hollow point than an HE round.
The Soviets during WW2 used HE rounds as sniper munitions.
Assault rifle was a nomenclature for smaller caliber rifles capable of both automatic and semi automatic fire that were designed to be used in an “assault” as in more mobile and rapidly advancing combat.
“Battle rifles” were defined as large caliber designed for more long range engagements and being primarily fired form stationary positions.
Arguably the first modern assault rifle was the M1 Carbine during WW2 it was essentially in the middle between a machine pistol/sub machine gun and a rifle.
When the “assault rifles” we know today were being designed the inspiration for them was many of the same hunting and sporter rifles and cartridges you want to get shot with.
5.56 NATO is based on the .223 Remington a hunting cartridge in fact the AR-15 predates the M-16.
“Assault” rifles aren’t designed to blow your anyone’s leg off.
(I'm not a gun nut but I am a physics nerd, so i read up on how assault weapons differ from more conventional hunting weapons. Note that many people hunt using assault rifles now).
But it only makes sense at really close range with excellent shot placement - anything less that is inhumane and causes the deer to suffer.
You can also verify this by checking the rifles that snipers use if they have a choice - it's never an assault rifle.
Nothing about my message should suggest anything about the humanity of using assault rifles to hunt deer. It's entirely about being factual about the nature of assault weapons, which some gun nuts seem to intentionally deny.
Please explain how a cartridge with less powder ends up generating more kinetic energy. Alternatively, explain how it's worse to have less kinetic energy.
You can reference this visual comparison of rifle cartridges to see what I mean: https://1source.basspro.com/news-tips/hunting-information/74...
Assault rifles were designed to allow soldiers to carry more bullets. It started with the Germans in WWII, who found that with mechanized warfare, infantry engagements were at closer range so they didn't need big heavy cartridges anymore.
Note that the .30-06 is a hunting cartridge today but it was also used in the main American battle rifle in WWII, the Springfield 1903. There's also the .308 which is commonly used in hunting and also various military battle rifles and sniper rifles. No infantry soldier would claim either is less effective than the 5.56.
Assault rifles generally fire either 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 - intermediate rounds than are unlawful for use in hunting most game because they are unlikely to kill the animal, at least quickly.
Hunting rifles are going to (except for varmint hunting) generally use much bigger, much more powerful rounds such as the .308 Winchester. It is much more likely to kill you (and much, much more likely to blow off an extremity if hit there) than an intermediate cartridge fired from an assault rifle.
https://1source.basspro.com/news-tips/hunting-information/74...
I don't think you know what you're talking about. IIRC, hunting rifles typically have more powerful cartridges (~bullets).
IIRC, typical military cartridges have been getting less and less powerful since WWII, because they make automatic fire possible and allow soldiers to carry more ammo.
Maybe that is the problem. Can he really buy hunting rifle without license?
If you want to do a crime with a gun, you definitely don't want a legal one. That's just stupid.
And people intent on doing crimes most of the time don't really need guns for it, it is just suspicious to carry a gun around and if you are doing something shady you want to bring as little suspicion as possible. And adds charges for illegal gun possession in case you are caught with one.
Gun regulation is mostly to stop stupid people act stupidly with a gun they already lawfully own, to stop people who for various reasons shouldn't own a gun from owning one legally and also to cool down the police so that it doesn't feel it has to shoot suspects on sight. (Notice stress on the word "feel")
I am all for gun regulation, I just feel it is a bad example for regulation.
If you make guns easier to get, you end up with more of these cases. You also end up making it easier for people to unlawfully get access to a gun. In Australia you have to be a reasonably "hard" criminal to get access to a gun illegally. There just aren't that many guns around since the Port Arthur massacre, and gun deaths have decreased as you'd naturally expect.
Do you know how many guns I saw in my life that did not belong to a uniformed or undercover Police officer, soldier guarding an embassy or security guard guarding taking money to or from ATM?
Exactly zero. And I am 38.
Here in Poland it is quite difficult to get a gun. Basically, you need exceptional circumstances to be allowed to own one and even then you are not allowed to just carry it around.
There are people who own a gun but most of them, from what I understand, will not take it anywhere.
Do people get beaten or stabbed here like in US? Sure. There's just no guns involved even for the ones that do own gun legally, because they would prefer to get beaten than bring out a gun.
Because of gun regulation, people learned to not consider guns to be a solution to their problems. Maybe if they fear their house might get robbed rather than buy a gun they will put bars on their windows and better security system.
And I strongly feel that this also affects you if you own a gun, in that it causes you to think more critically rather than just whip out a gun when you think a little bit threatened.
Less guns and less gun culture means less gun deaths. It's not rocket science.
I sometimes wish people should be required to post when downvoting to explain their point.
The data also shows that for every person that has saved themselves or some other person there are many, many people that died due to an accident or a conflict escalating due to a gun present.
It’s not legal in the US to “whip out a gun” if you feel a little threatened. You must literally fear for your life for you to use deadly force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0iN5J-9mk
Here you have a guy who felt a little threatened and shot another person for it claiming self defence, with a legal gun.
In this case the ability to own a gun and parade with it changed how the guy was thinking about possible conflict and risks.
That's largely because guns are so commonplace in US and not really treated with enough respect and thought for consequences.
Again you can not brandish (“parade”) a gun without a lawful reason.
I have a concealed carry permit in a state that allows open carry. I have no interest in drawing attention to myself. Nor would I draw my weapon without real fear for my life. Beyond the fact that I would hurt someone, which I am not interested in doing if there’s a viable alternative, the costs of defending yourself (lawyers, probably losing my job, etc) after a shooting would bankrupt most people.
For me, the idea of using a gun is as the last line of defense.
Does it make you sad or disappointed you feel the need to carry a gun in your regular life just to feel safe and secure in your society?
I've lived ~20 years in Canad and ~20 in Australia. My sister has lived ~20 in Australia and ~20 in the UK. The idea we would ever, ever feel the need to carry a gun is preposterous.
The number of handguns either of us has seen in those countries in our life is exactly zero.
I've spent time in 55 countries around the world, including almost all of Latin America and Africa, and I have never once felt the need for a firearm.
The idea of living in a place where I feel the need to carry a lethal weapon is extremely hard to grasp. It's hard for me to read your comment and not think something is very wrong with a society when regular, peaceful and intelligent citizens feel the need to carry a firearm.
FWIW, I own a hunting rifle here in Canada (.30/06, Remmington 700) and I enjoy hunting very much.
People say they need guns for defense. I can empathize with this, but I also understand that is just because there are other stupid people around carrying guns. There would not be a problem if nobody around had a gun.
In countries like that there are outlets for people to be able to shoot guns. In Poland you can go to a shooting range and you can also get a permit for hunting or sport rifle. In either case the use of the gun is restricted so that general population doesn't have to worry about being around people with guns.
I never felt a need to have a gun, ever. You don't have to worry about stupid entitled people either, they are harmless.
Your understanding is incorrect. I don't carry a gun because I fear others have guns at all. You all seem to think that a gun is the only way that someone can hurt you. When I was a younger man I was the victim of an attempted car-jacking. Fortunately quick thinking got me out of that situation. Regardless of whether this individual attempting to steal my car with me in it had a gun or not, he was physically larger than me and would have caused me harm (I did not grow up learning to fight.)
The idea of other people having guns is not the primary reason I carry. I'm happy for you that you never felt the need to carry a gun. I'd rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one. I respect your opinion, but the fact is we all have different, valid life experiences that affect our behavior and actions. I feel safe not carrying (I don't live in a warzone,) but I feel much safer carrying when and where I can lawfully do so.
It's funny, I think hunting is pretty inhumane (though I understand the need to manage the population, etc.) I'm not an advocate for making it illegal, it's just not for me. That's how I feel how guns should be looked at. If you don't want to own/carry a gun, that's your business - but don't try to stop me from doing so based on your preferences/opinions. Do guns wind up getting used to hurt people illegally - certainly. So do a lot of other things (alcohol, knives, vehicles, etc.) We don't ban them, we simply regulate them. We already have plenty of gun laws, and most people (99.999%) are law-abiding citizens.
Are you disappointed or sad that you should need/want to carry a gun in your daily life?
Are you happy your kids will live like that?
I just... I just, feel like that's a really sad state of affairs, and it would be something I'd much rather work to get away from. I see it like having to build shelters for the homeless, or having safe injecting rooms - they're good stop-gap measures and help society, but the goal is to fix the problem so they aren't needed long-long term.
People who own a gun in such countries know exactly why they own a gun. In any of those countries you would very unlikely be allowed a permit.
For example, here in Poland there are only two reasons for getting firearms permit: constant, hightened danger to your own life or when your actual job is to protect other people. In both cases the reason must be proven and documented.
I think we underrate the influence that small frictions in a process can have.
Japan has extremely small homicide rate, regardless of whether involving a gun. So it makes sense to disallow owning a gun because there isn't really need to own one. And the low homicide rate is not a result of gun regulation.
1. Unregistered destructive devices per federal law
2. Unregistered assault rifle per federal law
3. Unregistered rifle per DC law
4. Carrying a handgun without a license per DC law
If anything this seems like another case of criminals not following the law.
I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need license to keep and/or carry a firearm. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective.
Different systems (democratic vs. tyrannical) have a different spread of when and how violence occurs. Gun violence, which can be lessened in America once adequate policy is in place to prevent dis-progression and heal mind-body-soul vs. genocide by CCP of specific population who didn't want to fall in line with CCP rule.
One thing to note is that under current law you cannot stockpile weapons. And you cannot create bio weapons or cyber weapons. You have no access to massive bombs. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion, has become an excuse for individual to own weapons that are dangerous to private citizens and the safety of the public but of no consequence in a fight against a tyrannical government.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Note the "a well regulated Militia" and "a free State"
Militia is capitalized. As is State. In politics (and generally internationally "State" has a very different meaning than is commonly used in the USA (in modern times, the founding fathers used it more in line with the way international law understands it to mean). To keep it short, the National Guard, again in my opinion, very effectively fulfills the purposed intended of this amendment. It is a well regulated militia that the State can direct to mount an effective defense against a tyrannical Federal government.
Tell that to the Afghans.
There's really too much nuance and variables to argue this easily such as state of society, how rich or impoverished they are, how healthy or unhealthy they are - including their education - how open their heart and mind is, and so on.
A strong stable or stabilizing system - democracy in this case - that is capable of returning to the homeostasis with a forward-evolving movement will take an impressive attack to knock it down.
Of course there are bad actors who are trying to do such a thing, and due to all factors Biden won the election - and the Democrats won the Senate as well - so they can implement policy without being blocked by Republicans (nor extorted by giving $ trillions to corporations leveraging the need for stimulus-survival cheques) - and hopefully they implement new policies that will strengthen America and its democracy.
I believe Andrew Yang's core policies are the answer to breaking apart the duopoly and taking away the amalgamated power of the small handful of mainstream media channels (TV and newspapers) that amplify and support the duopoly: Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, and Government Healthcare Option ("Medicare For All") to compete against the status quo - so people can become healthy and do their best to prevent dis-ease.
I agree with you that the State is an additional layer to reduce, limit, de-risk the potential of tyranny - perhaps then private gun ownership then becomes a layer against each State potentially becoming tyrannical, and if the State starts clamping down on people with bad behaviour - control-oppression-violence - to too severe of a degree, then arguably people will start moving to another State that is in line with their own values.
It's all about organization, alignment, and readying for defending against the different layers of potential conflict - whether citizen to citizen, citizen to State, citizen to Federal, State to Federal, Federal to Federal - the fight for democracy-freedom vs. tyranny, globally.
Edit to add: It's important when reasoning to understand how these situations unfold - they don't happen overnight and there is time to organize. There will be peak moments that act as signals - whether things are evolving or devolving: Biden was elected is one signal from one side, the continued attempted coup the other day, where sadly a handful of people died, is another signal from the side; like the genocide of Uighurs in China by the CCP is a signal from one side, on global scale. Generally the side that acts first in a physical violence means will be the less rational one, more aggressive and using anger which will blind them to some degree - "blind rage." This is why economic pressure via multi-lateral trade agreements between Democracies is the best starting solution - and with other policy can quickly reenforce the internal strength of those currently leaking economic value, ROI et al, to a bad actor who won't fall in line with freedom, health, non-violence, and so on; none of this is to say the US isn't guilty in some areas of unnecessary violence.
Not trying to mock you, just seems like we have the same argument for our opposing views :)
My father is as left-leaning as they come (and an Italian immigrant) but he knew even then that the police can’t always protect you.
I was raised by the standards of "Talk or Run away", and I want to adhere to them. But I don't live in the US and in my country I don't have to be afraid to be home-invaded, especially not with guns.
I see that some people "need" guns, I just don't want that as a pacifist. To each their own I guess ;)
What you write makes sense, but it seems weird to me to justify having guns with a hypothetical, apocalyptical scenario. Sounds a bit like fear-mongering to me.
It's probably a cultural thing.
Most things seem hypothetical until they happen. Hundreds of millions of dead souls in the last century died from what was (at the time) a "hypothetical, apocalyptical scenario." And not only the death camps - think of how many people started their day normally, never knowing they would be murdered by a government by nightfall. History repeats itself so long as the basic flaws of human nature persist - and they will.
I know it's 2021 and it's sacrilege to even mention that men and women differ in very real and impactful ways, but.. there it is.
1. Civilians should be able to keep or carry a firearm without a license.
2. No civilian should be able to keep or carry a firearm.
In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns, rifles, or shotguns except in the more restrictive states. And each year more and more states are trending towards being able to carry without a permit as well.
Now I understand why police in the USA is so aggressive when they expect citizens to be armed. People are talking 'defund police' while problem lies in Constitution.
Frankly, I consider governments that have nuclear weapons and a disarmed citizenry much more dangerous that if the citizens are ultimately in control.
Different people have differing view on what "sensible" is:
* https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html
In the US, Massachusetts seems to have things that work pretty well without being (at least to some) too draconian:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
IMHO, the main problem is that (a) some people have poor impulse control, and (b) many others aren't aware enough of the basic safety rules:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
In Canada, the acronyms ACTS and PROVE are repeated over and over in the mandatory course(s), and if one follows them you reduce risk a lot:
* http://www.firearmstraining.ca/actsprove.htm
But sometimes people get too lazy/complacent even with them.
The media is just shameless with their lying. They were bottles full of fuel. Commonly called Molotov Cocktails by anyone who's watched an action movie.
BLM also used Molotov Cocktails, can't remember them being called bombs, because that would be a lie I guess.
Alabama Man Charged With Possession of Eleven Molotov Cocktails Found Near Protest at U.S. Capitol https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/alabama-man-charged-posse...
> Police also found cloth rags and lighters. The court documents said that those items and the explosive-filled mason jars "in close proximity to one another constitute a combination of parts" that could be used as a "destructive device."
I don't think the article is disagreeing with you.
Also, a Molotov cocktail is commonly referred to as a type of bomb:
> A Molotov cocktail, also known as a petrol bomb, gasoline bomb, bottle bomb, poor man's grenade, fire bomb (not to be confused with an actual fire bomb), fire bottle or just Molotov, sometimes shortened as Molly, is a generic name used for a variety of bottle-based improvised incendiary weapons.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail
That’s the recipe for napalm in the old Anarchist’s Handbook. I don’t recall it working very well.
I messed around with it as a stupid teenager.
In my experience, it works very well.
Lets see some proof of this.
- https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/2-lawyers-upstate-woma...
- https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-molotov-cocktail-suspect-sama...
Interestingly these do use the term bomb and explosive which contradict the comment you originally replied to. But it is true they are mere footnote stories.
I guess that either both the police did very well their jobs (after the fact) and/or the 'insurgents' (almost) only had their guns as symbols and/or there was a lot of luck involved.
Also, there's still no explanation as to why there wasn't a large, anti-riot police force defending the Capitol that day…
As riot raged at Capitol, Trump tried to call senators to overturn election
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-t...
Not to mention those that will result from COVID branching out from this event. Which - while less related - when considering the actions of the instigator are certainly notable.
DC has a ton of security, and it's basically only legal for them to possess the guns. Carrying guns openly in this area would lead to a quick arrest.
So - I think you're right that there was a lot of luck, but also there was a lot of preparation.
... only one of which involved a firearm, and that one was in the hands of a Capitol Police officer.
-Otto von Bismark
I keep returning to that quote in these days at it's so apt even hundreds of years later. The Capitol insurrection could have been sooo much worse. Only a handful of deaths resulted. That's incredulous for such an event. That a fire-bug didn't get in there and light the whole place up is incredible. That all of Congress was evacuated safely and stayed safe despite seditionists actively trying to lynch them, is amazing in the true sense of the word. The damage to the building itself was minimal, the art and statues are mostly intact, just unbelievable stuff. That despite saying he was going with them, Donny stayed at the WH and just watched the TV. Literally every other autocrat in history would have gone down to the floor of the House and declared themselves King. I cannot think of any other example where the tyrant did not do this (Sulla, but not really even then).
The US got so incredibly lucky in this that Bismark's quote is the only thing that makes sense to me.