Yeah, Milton Friedman. The guy who advocated abolishing the FDA, his thinking was that the threat of product liability lawsuits would prevent drug companies from releasing anything harmful.
The guy who's ideal society was Chile under Pinochet.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "responsible"...;->
That said, how many _responsible_ gun owners are there in the US?
Anybody got any idea what % of firearms are owned by people who would, say, qualify for a carry concealed permit?
I can't help but suspect (and, feel free to correct me) that an awful lot of firearms in the US are owned by criminals...Seems like certain types of criminals would have very serious incentives to tool up.
Look, even if you live in Israel, you're still 10X more likely to die in a car accident than as a result of an act of terrorism. So I'm not sure 'fear of terrorism' is a valid reason for doing, um, anything different.
What about this: Given a lifespan of centuries, wouldn't at least some wealthy people figure out that a large and increasing gap between rich and poor is a threat to their security? Think crime, revolts, revolutions?
I know that's optimistic, but given a lifespan of 2 or 3 times current averages, isn't it at least possible? Listen to what people like say, Warren Buffet have to say about income distribution.
That's the sorta argument that gun-rights advocates should be making!
Where was it, Arizona? Where they recently became a "shall-issue" state, and all the anti-gun types were predicting a huge increase in domestic shootings etc, and it just didn't happen.
Well, yes, it is the point. But it's also the way insurgent forces operate by necessity.
There's a world of difference between an insurgency that is not going to be defeated, and eventually the foreign invaders get bled dry and go home, vs an insurgency actually, say, taking the capital.
Uh, are you suggesting that a foreign invader is somehow analogous to domestic rebels?
And, uh, I don't see the insurgents in Iraq, or anywhere else, taking over the seat of government.
The basic pattern of insurgent armies is, they can make an infernal nuisance of themselves, but they any time they come out in the open from the hills/mountains/hiding amongst civilians/etc, they get slaughtered by government forces.
You got an example of a group of rebels, aside from China or Russia, that "liberated" themselves without outside help?
Man, the way my inbox has been filling up since I suggested that the rebels can't win, well, it gives me new optimism about the level of apathy in the US.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, the only time the rebels have ever won in history, without outside help, was Mao in China, right?
Well, that's certainly how it went with Vietnam, I'll agree with you there.
But, personally, I think gun rights advocates should be making the aggressive stance that "since the gov't can't protect us from muggings and home invasions, we have the right to tool up in self defense."
Although I guess some fancier language than "tool up" is probably appropriate.
Well, let's keep in mind, that rebels/insurgents can make an infernal nusciance of themselves, but there's basically never been a case of rebels taking over and ousting the government forces since artillery was invented.
But, hey, I think there's tons of good reasons to own a pistol other than the 2nd amendment. I think gun rights-advocates should be making the aggressive case that "if gov't can't protect us from home invasions and muggings, then we have the right to arm ourselves."
I think if even 50% of the civilian population was armed, and trained, it'd give a lot of criminals pause before attempting a home invasion or mugging or rape.
Hey, hey, hey, don't lump me in with the "gun haters".
I think private citizens being armed is a great idea. I _love_ firing pistols and rifles. I wish legal gun ownership was easier where I live in Canada. There was a case in Florida (I think) where a kid tried to pull a columbine, and one of the teachers went out to his car, retrieved his pistol, and shot the little bugger.
I think that if most citizens were armed (and trained!), it'd give criminals pause before doing muggings or rapes or home invasions.
All I'm saying is, I don't like the odds of overthrowing a government by violence.
What I wanna point out is, there's lots of good reasons to have firearms aside from 2nd amendment rights.
"As the decision states, whether resistance is a practical option in the 21st century has no bearing on whether it is a protected right."
This, I agree with. The fact that I don't have the money to start a TV station doesn't speak to anything about my freedom of speech.
Personally, I think gun-rights advocates in the US should start taking an aggressive stance, saying "If we can't count on the state to protect us from criminals, then we're justified in arming ourselves."
You're talking about the "all-out civil war" stage, sure, I agree with you. (BTW, check out the comic series "DMZ", basically that exact scenario. Militias take over national guard posts 'cause most of them are either in Iraq, unwilling to fire on fellow citizens, or joining up with the rebels.)
But how do we get from the "secret police rounding up dissidents" stage to the "armed uprising" stage?
Nobody really objected to the rounding up of Japanese during WWII. And only about 1/2 the population objects to Guantanamo.
I see the propaganda machine being cranked up and anybody who tries to take up arms being marginalized as a nut, somebody like McVeigh, and most of the population just changing the channel.
All talk about gun control is kind of closing the barn door after the horse is gone. There's, what, almost more firearms than citizens in the US now?
I think you're right on about well-armed honest citizens damping down the crime rate. Make criminals think twice about purse snatchings and home-invasions.
The other lovely argument against gun control is plain-old logistics. It's too late. I could be a bit off on the numbers, but aren't there actually now more firearms in the US than citizens? Trying to enforce gun control laws is closing the barn door after the horse is long since gone.
I think the 2nd amendment reasoning of "in case of tyranny, take up arms and overthrow the government" doesn't even pass the giggle test. You'll simply be hopelessly outgunned by any sort of state agency. That said, if I lived in the US, I'd probably own a pistol and get good at using it, simply because so many others have one.
Aren't there now more firearms than citizens in the US? The US government has trouble keeping track of the total number of illegal aliens in the country. Good luck tracking down 300 million firearms or so.
Gun control in the US is closing the barn door when the horse is galloping down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Milton Friedman. The guy who advocated abolishing the FDA, his thinking was that the threat of product liability lawsuits would prevent drug companies from releasing anything harmful.
The guy who's ideal society was Chile under Pinochet.
Because the Republicans will never allow it.
They know that even _Alberta_ would send 2 democrats to the senate.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "responsible"... ;->
That said, how many _responsible_ gun owners are there in the US?
Anybody got any idea what % of firearms are owned by people who would, say, qualify for a carry concealed permit?
I can't help but suspect (and, feel free to correct me) that an awful lot of firearms in the US are owned by criminals...Seems like certain types of criminals would have very serious incentives to tool up.
I guess the continued success of lotteries is proof that most people don't understand practical statistics...
Uh, wasn't Iraq one of the better-armed countries in the world before the invasion?
And I actually don't know if that backs up your point or invalidates it...
Look, even if you live in Israel, you're still 10X more likely to die in a car accident than as a result of an act of terrorism. So I'm not sure 'fear of terrorism' is a valid reason for doing, um, anything different.
Let's keep risks in perspective, ok?
What about this: Given a lifespan of centuries, wouldn't at least some wealthy people figure out that a large and increasing gap between rich and poor is a threat to their security? Think crime, revolts, revolutions?
I know that's optimistic, but given a lifespan of 2 or 3 times current averages, isn't it at least possible? Listen to what people like say, Warren Buffet have to say about income distribution.
Good point,especially about Confederate ex-US officers. You'd see that happening a lot, I agree.
I guess it goes to show that even the best case scenario is still pretty much a nightmare...
Sure, in the case of a foreign invader, that's true. Not sure that theory's ever been tested "domestically".
Exactly!
That's the sorta argument that gun-rights advocates should be making!
Where was it, Arizona? Where they recently became a "shall-issue" state, and all the anti-gun types were predicting a huge increase in domestic shootings etc, and it just didn't happen.
Well, yes, it is the point. But it's also the way insurgent forces operate by necessity.
There's a world of difference between an insurgency that is not going to be defeated, and eventually the foreign invaders get bled dry and go home, vs an insurgency actually, say, taking the capital.
Uh, are you suggesting that a foreign invader is somehow analogous to domestic rebels?
And, uh, I don't see the insurgents in Iraq, or anywhere else, taking over the seat of government.
The basic pattern of insurgent armies is, they can make an infernal nuisance of themselves, but they any time they come out in the open from the hills/mountains/hiding amongst civilians/etc, they get slaughtered by government forces.
You got an example of a group of rebels, aside from China or Russia, that "liberated" themselves without outside help?
Attention shoppers, we've got a sale on weaponized anthrax, 2nd one 1/2 off when you purchase any other weapon of mass destruction!
Man, the way my inbox has been filling up since I suggested that the rebels can't win, well, it gives me new optimism about the level of apathy in the US.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, the only time the rebels have ever won in history, without outside help, was Mao in China, right?
OK, but, then your opposition is a swat team. And if you kill them all, there's more where they came from.
It's like how 60s radicals thought they could bring the revolution by bombing courthouses or something. They'll just build more courthouses.
Well, that's certainly how it went with Vietnam, I'll agree with you there.
But, personally, I think gun rights advocates should be making the aggressive stance that "since the gov't can't protect us from muggings and home invasions, we have the right to tool up in self defense."
Although I guess some fancier language than "tool up" is probably appropriate.
Heh, good point.
If I could mod up something I commented on, I'd mod you up.
I guess what I really wanted to say is, there's lots of good reasons to own firearms aside from the 2nd amendment.
Well, let's keep in mind, that rebels/insurgents can make an infernal nusciance of themselves, but there's basically never been a case of rebels taking over and ousting the government forces since artillery was invented.
But, hey, I think there's tons of good reasons to own a pistol other than the 2nd amendment. I think gun rights-advocates should be making the aggressive case that "if gov't can't protect us from home invasions and muggings, then we have the right to arm ourselves."
I think if even 50% of the civilian population was armed, and trained, it'd give a lot of criminals pause before attempting a home invasion or mugging or rape.
Hey, hey, hey, don't lump me in with the "gun haters".
I think private citizens being armed is a great idea. I _love_ firing pistols and rifles. I wish legal gun ownership was easier where I live in Canada. There was a case in Florida (I think) where a kid tried to pull a columbine, and one of the teachers went out to his car, retrieved his pistol, and shot the little bugger.
I think that if most citizens were armed (and trained!), it'd give criminals pause before doing muggings or rapes or home invasions.
All I'm saying is, I don't like the odds of overthrowing a government by violence.
What I wanna point out is, there's lots of good reasons to have firearms aside from 2nd amendment rights.
"As the decision states, whether resistance is a practical option in the 21st century has no bearing on whether it is a protected right."
This, I agree with. The fact that I don't have the money to start a TV station doesn't speak to anything about my freedom of speech.
Personally, I think gun-rights advocates in the US should start taking an aggressive stance, saying "If we can't count on the state to protect us from criminals, then we're justified in arming ourselves."
Sorry, I stand corrected.
I should've said "nobody took up arms".
Well, I see Bert being the first on the list of subversives who gets rounded up, long before any citizens try to take over the capital or something...
BTW - check out the comic 'DMZ'. It's basically the scenario we're talking about here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMZ_(comic)
You're talking about the "all-out civil war" stage, sure, I agree with you. (BTW, check out the comic series "DMZ", basically that exact scenario. Militias take over national guard posts 'cause most of them are either in Iraq, unwilling to fire on fellow citizens, or joining up with the rebels.)
But how do we get from the "secret police rounding up dissidents" stage to the "armed uprising" stage?
Nobody really objected to the rounding up of Japanese during WWII. And only about 1/2 the population objects to Guantanamo.
I see the propaganda machine being cranked up and anybody who tries to take up arms being marginalized as a nut, somebody like McVeigh, and most of the population just changing the channel.
All talk about gun control is kind of closing the barn door after the horse is gone. There's, what, almost more firearms than citizens in the US now?
Well, maybe, and given an all-out civil war like that, I think you may have something there.
But how do we get from the point of "secret police rounding up dissidents" (think Rex 84) to "supply lines are vulnerable"?
Nobody objected to rounding up Japanese during WWII. Only about 1/2 the population objects to Guantanamo.
I think you're right on about well-armed honest citizens damping down the crime rate. Make criminals think twice about purse snatchings and home-invasions.
The other lovely argument against gun control is plain-old logistics. It's too late. I could be a bit off on the numbers, but aren't there actually now more firearms in the US than citizens? Trying to enforce gun control laws is closing the barn door after the horse is long since gone.
In a country as well-armed as the US.
I think the 2nd amendment reasoning of "in case of tyranny, take up arms and overthrow the government" doesn't even pass the giggle test. You'll simply be hopelessly outgunned by any sort of state agency. That said, if I lived in the US, I'd probably own a pistol and get good at using it, simply because so many others have one.
Aren't there now more firearms than citizens in the US? The US government has trouble keeping track of the total number of illegal aliens in the country. Good luck tracking down 300 million firearms or so.
Gun control in the US is closing the barn door when the horse is galloping down the road.