1) A more fair interpretation of the pro-gun argument would be that firearm rights are designed to guarantee long-term stability and democracy. The current stability of a small amount of relatively young democracies in Europe and Asia that do not have gun rights does not debunk the claim that gun rights protect against tyranny over the long term.
2) Considering the EXTREMELY violent, turbulent history of the last 100-150 years of governance (democratic and otherwise) in Europe and Asia, I don't think this is the strong argument you think it is.
the 1st point is the most important, because the "armed society" has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and creates new levels of social inequality. The NYT had a great opinion piece detailing these concerns: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-...
also it's not clear why, with your own experience seeing a successful gun-controlled, and then a successful non-gun-controlled, country, you want to pick the second. I'd pick the first - the successful gun control model is much more common than the successful non-gun-control model. Perhaps the approach needs to fit the society ?
Firearms rights are an intellectual exercise to me, for the most part. I know they are personal to some, but this is an intellectual forum.
In the last five years, the pro-gun-rights side of the equation has moved more away from the idea of fighting a tyrannical government to an idea of self defense.
Also, I see those two ideas as related. A tyrannical government need not turn the military against disfavored citizens. It need only deny them police protection and turn criminals loose.
Ukraine is also interesting and there's probably some lesson there about gun rights, but I'm not well informed on that matter.
My argument is advocating for guns so that a population can determine its own fate, and not be subject to either domestic or foreign top-down control against its own will.
1. The majority of the time, encryption is used for legal, positive reasons, like protecting your bank info or medical info. Guns, on the other hand, there's no argument for: just look at the data from the UK. Even the police are better off without guns.
2. This might be true for guns, but who cares?
3. In the age of tanks, machine guns, and grenades, consumer guns don't enable us to overthrow unjust governments as they did when the bill of rights was written. As such, they no longer play a role in protecting our civil rights. If anything, gun rights are frequently a talking point for Right-wing politicians who happily trample over all of our other civil liberties. As a political force, the pro-gun politics is actively harming our civil liberties.
4. Looking at the data, I don't see how your can argue this. In the US guns are used more in suicide or commission of a crime than in self-defense. In the UK, near-universal bans on guns have lead to a drastic decrease in gun deaths.
It's definitely the case that an armed populace acts as a check against tyranny. You can argue that this is not enough of a benefit to warrant private gun ownership given the societal costs and low probability of a tyrannical government in the US, but this benefit definitely exists.
That's a counterfactual argument. It is by definition unprovable. I said that Europe shouldn't be considered a gun control success, not that if there were guns, WW2 would have been prevented.
During the Weimar era and the Nazi era, gun control laws were put into place. That is a historical fact.
Also, hint: saying that Hitler was voted into power as if it were an average democratic vote deeply misunderstands the situation. I suggest reading more about the era, specifically Ian Kershaw's book.
Not that I agree that an armed population is the BEST way to avoid tyranny, but saying A helps avoid B isn't contradicted by saying 'we don't have A or B so that can't be true'
> Europe in general has done away with gun rights debates
One side has won, but it's hardly been "done away with". Even in the UK there is support for relaxing gun control. There are some countries in Europe with fairly strong laws protecting gun ownership as well, like the Czech Republic.
I agree. Although there's some truth to the gun argument in certain societies, it's definitely not universal truth. It's interesting that this argument is often made by Americans of all people, where guns - while very prevalent - do not equal political power at all. Also ironically all those who claim their guns protect them from tyranny do not seem to notice how their rights are taken away bit by bit and the gun makes no difference. When that heavily militarized SWAT team kicks in your door one day to arrest you for the illegal Twitter post, all good the gun does is that you can use it to evade arrest by killing yourself. Don't need a gun for that.
So the problem here is one of framing. Without the polemic slant, here's what you've effectively said:
Gun control.
Cost: lessens ability of one societal subgroup to wage a violent revolution, the possibility of which puts a check on society at large, when that subgroup's grievances are legitimate.
Benefit: lessens ability of one societal subgroup to wage a violent revolution, the possibility of which puts a check on society at large, when that subgroup's grievances aren't legitimate.
Strong encryption (and other anonymizing technologies).
Benefit: lessens society's ability to curtail the activities of people the society doesn't like (who just happen to have different points of view).
Cost: lessens society's ability to curtail the activities of people the society doesn't like (from people that are actually bad).
See, the thing about both of these things (from the point of view of an individual) is that they both form direct checks against society.
In the case of encryption+anonymity, society can't know who to target, and in the case of firearms law, society will think twice about attacking others physically.
So you're not going to need to deal with, say, parts of society that actually have the power to get you fired because you have a political opinion that contradicts theirs- maybe it's something completely ridiculous (like you're an actual 1945 Nazi), or maybe it's something more subtle (maybe you're Brendan Eich or James Damore). Or maybe you're an environmental or civil rights leader with some dirty laundry that would hurt you if aired.
And reality bears this out. Ever wonder why Germans are highly protective of their privacy? The Stasi, that's why- the dominant group in the geographical area of East Germany wreaked absolute havoc because society trusted them to do the right thing (just like they trusted the Nazis).
Ever wonder why the Czechs are highly protective of their firearms?
Same deal- their people could not advance and prosper because a certain other nation kept killing them (also the secret police thing).
These people know the evil that society does when it runs amok, and know why it can't be trusted with these tools.
They favor strong protections that individuals can use to escape society's fickle desires (like banning whatever boogeyman's in the news this week).
And society is notoriously bad at determining good from the bad and right from wrong; when it gets it really wrong, lots of people die.
Germany, China, USSR; all societies that have very little in the way of stopping the majority from abusing its power, and all who have killed tens of millions of their own people.
Now sure, individuals in a given society may vary in how comfortable they are with trusting said society (there are some good things that can come of it; environmental regulations and affordable healthcare being two notable examples)- but to say that there are some liberties that are fundamentally incomparable is disingenuous.
Unless the society you trust tells you otherwise, of course.
What evidence do you have for suggesting that a citizenry with guns serves to protect other freedoms? The US generally isn't among the top countries on the various international freedom indexes[1] despite our prevalence of guns. We are usually behind Canada, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries depending on the specific criteria being evaluated.
Whilst true, Europeans do have more freedoms around not getting shot. :p
That's the thing about a framework of freedoms. In anarchy, the strong will subjugate the weak, and thus only the strong are free.
Thus if we want to protect your right to not be shot, we need to prohibit someones right to shoot you, and in some societies that extends to your right to bare arms with actual positive outcomes behind it.
I've, further, got some strong suspicions that a look at history and whatever limited and noisy data are available, is more likely to support the notion that our kind of gun laws are at least as much a risk to the maintenance of liberal democracy, as a protector of it. Yet, that's a common justification for why we mustn't question the 2nd. AFAIK they've contributed at least as often to imposing oppression as to resisting oppression, on the local scale in the US. Then there's revolutions in other countries, where they seem at least as often to aid overthrowing a democracy as to play a pivotal role in defending it (though, from what I can tell, they hardly matter in either case—foreign aid and gaining the support of elements of the military are usually far, far more effective in actually forcing an outcome).
That's in addition to the hard-to-quantify harm to freedom from having to worry about terrified, trigger-happy cops.
Got half a mind to research it and write a book about whatever I find....
The right to bear arms in the USA is often most appreciated by citizens of foreign lands where life is lived on the precipice between democracy and tyranny. Gun deaths and mass shootings are horrible but the solution is not to abolish the 2nd amendment.
As much as you might be technically correct, there's no reason to antagonize the other guy, especially if the goal is to have him adopt your point of view. While he might have overstepped in his argument, phorese has a point in that guns are designed to deliver (usually destructive) kinetic energy at a distance.
Why might European governments be more restrictive? Are there any non-restrictive ones? Have there ever been? Where are they now? Might America be a different case, allowed to flourish under another set of rules?
I'm not saying you're wrong. You're not. Maybe I'm just encouraging civil discussion. Maybe I'm bored at work. Maybe both.
Here's my n=1 first attempt to spur ChatGPT into correcting my right-leaning viewpoints. Nothing seems especially leftist. Did I get lucky, or is this leftist propaganda in disguise?
> I know guns are important to a free society, but I'm having trouble constructing a cogent argument therefore. Please help.
> Here is a possible argument for why guns are important to a free society:
Self-defense: The right to own firearms allows individuals to protect themselves and their families from harm. This is a fundamental aspect of personal freedom and autonomy.
Deterrent against government tyranny: Throughout history, there have been many examples of governments abusing their power and violating the rights of their citizens. The possession of firearms by the general population can act as a deterrent against such abuse, as it makes it more difficult for the government to infringe upon the rights of its citizens.
Hunting and recreation: For many people, owning firearms is an enjoyable hobby, whether it's for hunting or target shooting. This is a form of recreation that can be enjoyed in a responsible manner and provides a valuable source of recreation for millions of people.
Cultural heritage: Owning firearms is part of many cultural traditions, particularly in the United States, where it is enshrined in the Constitution as a fundamental right.
In conclusion, guns play an important role in a free society by enabling individuals to defend themselves, serving as a deterrent against government tyranny, providing a source of recreation, and representing a cultural heritage.
Edit: My next dozen results all also seemed reasonable. Is my question biased to avoid ChatGPT's leftist agenda?
2) Considering the EXTREMELY violent, turbulent history of the last 100-150 years of governance (democratic and otherwise) in Europe and Asia, I don't think this is the strong argument you think it is.
reply