Except for the “satanic” comment I thought this was really well written, and reasonably well referenced, though I’m no historian.
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/75-3/753-4.html
I’d be interested to hear any specific criticisms from the gun/magazine grabbers.
Well, on the plus side the linked piece did avoid the more most silly and pugnacious version of this kind of argument, with grandiose claims that that private firearms prevent tyranny.
On the negative side, it nonetheless failed to make a persuasive case for the central contention beyond the bare claim that firearms could affect the margins by imposing a cost calculus to acting violently, and dismissing the potential problem as a failure of imagination.
If you’re asserting that this is a real problem that we need to grapple with, then you really ought to be able to put together a robust and realistic assessment of the probabilities for treating it as such, as well as a compelling narrative explaining how it happens. That framework needs to consist of something more substantial than “durrr, human nature; it could happen”.
It was a particular weakness of the piece that it failed to grapple with explanatory conditions behind extant genocides and tribal conflict beyond firearms usage. So, for example, the absence of a meaningful rule of law, and civil society, and institutions - are far more plausible explanations for violence.
Do white Gentiles—whom I safely assume comprise the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the United States— actually have reason to think that their firearms are the only thing keeping a “holocaust” at bay? Perpetrated by which minority, exactly?
Illinois Nazis.
No, they don’t. Some are concerned about government tyranny being more difficult to oppose without privately owned firearms, but an ethnic-cleansing effort is not what they are worried about.
You would be incorrect. While white people are the largest single group of gun owners, they constitute merely a plurality at 44%.
The cite says that 44% of white people own guns, not that 44% of gun owners are white. 27% of non-whites are said to own guns, a significantly lower rate. If 66% of the population is white, then white people comprise 76% of all gun owners, with non-whites at 24%.
To those that claim that people who ask questions of gun rights enthusiasts have a habit of “poisoning the well” when they do so-please take note of this passage from the OP.
Anyone who thinks that private gun ownership is keeping a government with tanks, missiles, jets, and nukes at bay is delusional.
This. Gun ownership was common among Iraqis under Saddam; it didn’t keep him from being as tyrannical as he pleased.
And Egypt has a very low gun ownership rate; but when the people there decided to overthrow their own tyrannical government, they did it quickly, efficiently and largely bloodlessly.
Of course you believe that - this is the same ignorance and fetishism that makes gun control advocates think that “assault weapons” and automatic weapons are a significant contributor to gun deaths. War is not simply about grinding Military A against Military B until one collapses, it is about achieving objectives. A bomber cannot exploit an oil field. An ICBM cannot hold territory. Unless your only goal is genocide for the sake of genocide, without even taking advantage of the newly empty territory, you must use infantry and non-combat personnel. And armed partisans can keep those at bay, or force them to devote more resources to ensuring their success than the mission is worth. That is how private gun ownership can keep a military at bay.
Except that it provably doesn’t work that way. As has already been pointed out, tyrants rule over gun owning populaces just fine.
Let me ask you something: if the U.S. military were given the order to enforce these horrible things - tyranny, genocide - do you think they’d obey? Because if not, then you don’t need guns; and if they would, then *there’s *your problem. Fix that.
I love how this argument - “gun ownership prevents gov’t tyranny” - completely ignores the fact that every other developed country on planet Earth has much stricter gun controls than the USA, and yet - despite this - the amount of developed countries that have imposed tyranny on their own citizens since the end of WW2 is… zero.
I am making an honest effort to ignore my fetishes and understand your POV, but I still don’t get what it is you think the government might do if you and your guns weren’t there to stop them. They already run the country, so there is no need for them to take and hold land inside its borders. Nor can I imagine a scenario where rounding up all the white people and putting them in camps makes any sense.
They have already passed all the laws they need to do whatever they want to you, and a lot of the super-patriots who are so worried about Obama’s designs on the Second Amendment, cheered Bush on while he fucked the 4th through 8th amendments in the ass. If they want to ship you to a secret prison and hold you indefinitely without trial, all they have to do is say they suspect you of terrorism. And if you already have a bunch of assault weapons in your home, you just save them the trouble of planting them.
So what more do you think they would/could do if you had no gun, and how would your having a gun prevent it? If a policeman knocks on your door and says he wants you to go to the station with him because a witness reported your license plate number leaving the scene of an accident, are you going to shoot him? Because if you don’t, and you go to the station to straighten things out, and he’s really an FBI agent who made up the story about the witness, that might be the last time your family ever sees you.
Why would the government need to send infantry into the streets, when they can just do that?
Not that I agree with the OP, but that happened in pretty much all of Eastern Europe after WWII.
How about Cuba? The whole of Eastern Europe? Iran? China? Apartheid South Africa? Zimbabwe? Pinochet’s Chile?
Maybe a Native American could better answer that question.
The article specifically mentions the KKK.