I was wrong about Guns

[Buck Edwards]

You can't regulate govt with guns. 

[Basman]

In N. Europe access to guns is highly regulated and mostly just for hunting. I do envy America a little for all the fun toys you can get access to and I think there is some merit to guns as a self-defense measure in a trained and regulated fashion but on the other hand we have next to no serious gun violence.

All we get are these Elmer Fudd guns with a max capacity of two. Doesn't inspire much in the way of fervor. In Norway you can't even use an airgun to shoot rats (legally).

[integral]

On 1/6/2025 at 0:22 PM, Leo Gura said:

Sounds nice in theory but don't work in practice.

Many countries more developed than the USA have banned guns. Yet their government is more responsive and healthy than American government.

America has endless guns yet the government is no better off for it. The guns do not help an advanced society better itself.

You're not going to regulate Federal government with guns. It's just not a real scenario. You can do some terrorism and that's about it. This terrorism will not create meaningful improvement.

It's a fantasy. A gun fantasy.

A society in which people are using guns to regulate government is not a society anyone would want to live in. That would be like the Congo or Sudan.

The truth is that Americans are lost in a gun fantasy.

The bottom line is that violence begets violence. Which is the whole reason why the state has a monopoly on power. To effectively challenge the state through violence you need tanks and planes, not ARs. And even then it works poorly, as you can see from Ukraine, Iraq, Palestine.

Palestine shows you what happens when you try to challenge a state with small arms and homemade bombs. The state will just hunt you down and execute you. People who think they can challenge a state with small arms guerilla tactics are delusional, living in a fantasy. That kind of thing can only work in very undeveloped and corrupt places like Afghanistan or Sudan.

Yes this is the left leaning perspective that I held my entire life, I'm saying specifically there is one use case for a gun and that's one person could kill another person regardless of their social status. So when Donald Trump becomes a dictator he can be forcefully removed from office. There's no other reason guns should exist in the population and I agree they should be largely illegal.

9 hours ago, eliasvelez said:

Posts like this show me how much different the american bubble is than the european. Almost nobody in Europe would say something like this because it doesnt is that easy. 

Guns could become illegal in a country to suppress people or to improve Society. In the way European governments evolved it played out that removing guns from the population was the natural progression and progress. In some countries due to their culture, banning guns is for the purpose of repression and control. So it's relative for where their society is in its development. 

For example in Venezuela guns were largely made illegal in 2012 and their government absolutely devastated the population in the name of corruption. Not that guns would have made any difference.

The purpose of a gun in society is relative to cultural and social circumstances. 

In a world Before the legal system was invented, you better own a gun.

Edited Tuesday at 06:53 PM by integral

[Basman]

50 minutes ago, integral said:

Yes this is the left leaning perspective that I held my entire life, I'm saying specifically there is one use case for a gun and that's one person could kill another person regardless of their social status.

You don't need a free market of guns to achieve that. Just acquire one illegally.

In practice, a bomb is probably more effective than small arms, like that scooter trap that killed that Russian general recently. When Luigi Mangione used a handgun to kill that CEO it was no doubt in part a statement. In fact, I'd argue most premeditated acts of gun violence are in parts statements rather than just pure acts of elimination. Like a school shooting or the terrorist attack on Utøya in Norway by Anders Breivik.

[fanta]

Problem with access with guns is that it just escalates any situation to an extreme. Just look at Kyle Rittenhouse. Its laughable. Walking around with weapons is like holding a lighted match near a barrell of gun powder.

[Scholar]

The best argument for guns is that it gives individuals who are physically disadvantaged a power equalizer. In the end, if you ban guns, you take away from vulnerable individuals the only means they might have to defend themselves from physically dominating individuals. An example might be a woman who has a crazy ex boyfriend who stalks her. In that case, not only can the gun provide a feeling of basic security, but it might also be used in the case violence is escalated.

[whh2222]

Having a gun in America only services me against the unstable civilians. I know I have no shot against the government.