Guns and the defense of liberty.

[HurricaneDitka]

@BobLibDem

one wonders how societies where guns are not as easily obtained, like most of Western Europe, are such free societies …

Because the Brits and Americans came with their guns and kicked the Nazis out?

@AK84

CItizens cannot hope to defeat the coersive power of the state in open battle. Period. Or at least sans help from wihout, defections amongst security forces etc.

Why does everyone think they want to line up in “open battle” like redcoats or something? If it ever came to that, it’d be an American insurgency, in which small arms would be quite useful (just ask the Syrians). And yes, I’d expect that if a significant number of Americans felt it justified and necessary to literally fight against the government, that a not-insignificant portion of those Americans would be defectors from the security forces.

@Dob

DOL is bogus mostly in the sense that the US Military is more than capable of taking every single gun in this country if needed, and no gun owner could stop them.

Yeah, they did such a good job of disarming Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m sure that would work in the US …

[Deeg]

@XT

Yes, definitely…probably why we were able to crush the Iraqi’s so easily, and why the war in Afghanistan only took a few months. And why the Syrians were able to crush the uprising so easily, and why the Kaddaffi Duck is still in power in Libya and the various factions opposed to him were snuffed out like a candle in the wind. Yup, if the military is involved the the people have zero chance whether they have guns or not.

This doesn’t bolster the DoL argument because it wasn’t the “personal” guns that led to effective resistance but the weapons provided by outside agencies. If guns in the hands of citizens are effective against a modern military why haven’t the Palestinians thrown out the Israelis?

[XT]

@Deeg

This doesn’t bolster the DoL argument because it wasn’t the “personal” guns that led to effective resistance but the weapons provided by outside agencies. If guns in the hands of citizens are effective against a modern military why haven’t the Palestinians thrown out the Israelis?

Because the Palestinians aren’t well armed IN Israel, of course. In addition, Israeli citizens are…as is the military. So, you’d have one population that isn’t well armed IN ISRAEL fighting against both a population that is AND a well armed and motivated military. Which is why the Palestinians haven’t been able to toss out the Israelis.

As for your first point, private gun ownership would be the seed, assuming a large percentage of the population really wanted to throw out the government. The reality is that private guns would only be the start, and as in the other insurgencies we are seeing in the world in the past few years, they would rapidly be replaced either from taking weapons in depots, or through military units who are sympathetic to the insurgents, or off of the dead on the battlefield. And they would use IEDs, and more heavy weapons, just as other insurgents have. This doesn’t negate the value of having 100’s of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition in the general population.

Personally, as I’ve said, I think the DoL argument is pretty improbable. Americans should have the ability to own firearms privately because it’s a protected right, it’s also a tradition that few other countries or citizens enjoy or have enjoyed in history. We pay for that right and privilege by the fact that by allowing personal gun ownership we have a much higher death rate due to fire arms than most other countries. It’s similar to the fact that by allowing alcohol in our society we acknowledge that a non-zero number of people will be harmed by doing so. If that is acceptable to a society, then it is…if not, then not.

And none of this, to me anyway, means that firearm ownership can’t be regulated.

[Deeg]

@XT

Because the Palestinians aren’t well armed IN Israel, of course. In addition, Israeli citizens are…as is the military. So, you’d have one population that isn’t well armed IN ISRAEL fighting against both a population that is AND a well armed and motivated military. Which is why the Palestinians haven’t been able to toss out the Israelis.

But what about the time when the Israelis occupied the Gaza Strip?

[XT]

@Deeg

But what about the time when the Israelis occupied the Gaza Strip?

What about it? The Israelis were in armed enclaves and the local Palestinian population isn’t well armed. Hamas et al are well armed, but afaik your average Palestinian isn’t, unless he’s part of Hamas or one of the other insurgent/terrorist groups.

[China_Guy]

@Kable

The siege of Sarajevo happened in the 90s.

I don’t think anyone argues that disarmament must lead to tyranny, just that it’s easier to oppress and murder people that are not armed. http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/75-3/753-4.html

I think a first world example might be a little more relevant. You have one within the last couple of decades?

[JXJohns]

@China_Guy

I think a first world example might be a little more relevant. You have one within the last couple of decades?

The Winter Olympics were hosted in Sarajevo in 1984. Not sure how much more first world you want to get.

[Lumpy]

I would be perfectly willing to accept that it’s possible for countries with disarmed citizens to be perfectly peaceful, free and democratic, and stay that way for the indefinite future, like Japan and much of Europe for example - IF someone could explain to me why this is true now when it was apparently never ever true before the latter nineteenth century. And if some explanation could be offered that’s a bit more substantial than “our army and police will never put a tyrant in power because they believe in democratic traditions”. Why does the formula that produces juntas, generales and presidents-for-life in South America, Africa, the Middle East and much of Asia, not do so in Europe? As I’ve posted in previous threads, the fact that Britain isn’t a dictatorship is baffling to me.

[LinusK]

Let me try this.

1. Things associated with liberty:
   Education, free speech, tolerance, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and a commitment to non-violence.

2. Things NOT associated with liberty: guns.

3. Things associated with tyranny: guns.

4. Things NOT associated with tyranny: see #1.

[Dave_Hartwick]

There appears to be little correlation between tyranny and gun control.

I compared rankings from the Gun Rights Index to the Index of Freedom in the World.

Lax gun laws, low ratings for political rights and civil liberties: Saudi Arabia, Madagascar, Rwanda, Iraq.

Lax gun laws, high ratings for political rights and civil liberties: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Israel, South Africa, Switzerland.

Strict gun laws, high ratings for political rights and civil liberties: Andorra, Australia, Barbados, Canada, Japan, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Taiwan, United Kingdom

Strict gun laws, low ratings for political rights and civil liberties: Cambodia, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

A simple Excel CORREL comparison shows a slight correlation between law gun laws and less shooty freedoms, but bear in mind that I threw out the United States (each state is listed separately on the gun list) and also anything that I would have had to work at to get a result (only looked at 2012 values for PRs and CLs, and for example ignored North and South Korea because it was “N.” and “S.” on one list and spelled out on another.)

Freedom in the World

Gun Rights Index

[Deeg]

@XT

What about it? The Israelis were in armed enclaves and the local Palestinian population isn’t well armed. Hamas et al are well armed, but afaik your average Palestinian isn’t, unless he’s part of Hamas or one of the other insurgent/terrorist groups.

And why hasn’t Hamas freed the Palestinians from the tyranny of Israel? They have rockets which is more than your average American has. IMO it’s because armed, untrained civilians are no match for modern well-trained armies. The DoL notion is highly speculative.

That said, on further reflection I really like what you said here:

@XT

Personally, as I’ve said, I think the DoL argument is pretty improbable. Americans should have the ability to own firearms privately because it’s a protected right, it’s also a tradition that few other countries or citizens enjoy or have enjoyed in history. We pay for that right and privilege by the fact that by allowing personal gun ownership we have a much higher death rate due to fire arms than most other countries. It’s similar to the fact that by allowing alcohol in our society we acknowledge that a non-zero number of people will be harmed by doing so. If that is acceptable to a society, then it is…if not, then not.

I’m pretty much in full agreement.

[Kable]

@CJJ

I don’t know that they would have been or not, but it seems clear that the possession of guns here was not at all effective as a DoL against a tyranny, which is the point of this thread.

Of course you know CJJ, the Jews were all being exterminated anyway. With minimal weapons…

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Wikipedia

…they put up a pretty good fight, killed some Germans, and tied up German forces, both of which helped the war effort. I bet they would have faired a lot better if every adult Jew in Poland had his own military rifle.

If you want a happier ending I encourage, you to read up on the Bielski partisans. Bielski partisans - Wikipedia

I posted about them earlier. Why didn’t you want to talk about them?

[Kable]

@Dave_Hartwick

There appears to be little correlation between tyranny and gun control.

What are your thoughts on this?

“Imagine that the year is 1900. You are told that within fifty years, a nation in the world will kill over six million members of a religious minority. Which nation would you pick? If you were well-informed about world affairs, it is very unlikely that you would pick Germany. In 1900, Germany was a democratic, progressive nation. Jews living there enjoyed fuller acceptance in society than they did in Britain, France, or the United States. In 1900, probably much less than 13% of the German population favored killing all Jews. Thirty-five years later, circumstances had changed.”

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/lethal.htm

[Crepitus_Fremitus]

For those who do support DOL as a reason for citizen gun/arms ownership:

1. Do you think there should be any limitations on the type of arms citizens should be able to own (or at least any limits that are not also put on the military)?

2. If so, what limitations, and why those?

3. How do you rationalize, within the context of the DOL position, placing those limitations?

[Dave_Hartwick]

@Kable

Of course you know CJJ, the Jews were all being exterminated anyway. With minimal weapons…

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Wikipedia

…they put up a pretty good fight, killed some Germans, and tied up German forces, both of which helped the war effort. I bet they would have faired a lot better if every adult Jew in Poland had his own military rifle.

If you want a happier ending I encourage, you to read up on the Bielski partisans. Bielski partisans - Wikipedia

I posted about them earlier. Why didn’t you want to talk about them?

The Polish Jews? They were conquered, along with their nation. Of course their arms would be confiscated, just as German arms were confiscated by the Americans.

A better question, if you’re interested in guns preventing tyranny, is why the guns belonging to Germans were so rarely turned against the Nazis. It’s a common misconception that the Nazis were big on gun control, but they relaxed the Wiemar laws. Jews were prevented from having guns. All non-Jewish Germans over 17 could get a rifle or shotgun. Long guns were completely deregulated.

Our sympathies naturally lie with the persecuted Jews. Germans, however, were also subjugated. Why, if guns are a threat to tyrants, did the Nazis loosen gun laws? Why did the Germans not overthrow the Nazis with their guns?

I see you asked another question-- what do I think of that quote. I think it’s an interesting point that the Jews were well-integrated into Germany. If I was around in 1900 and asked that question I probably would have picked Russia, which had a bad reputation. The question seems off topic. Do you have a connection to make?

[Mdcastle]

nm

[BobLibDem]

@Kable

What are your thoughts on this?

“Imagine that the year is 1900. You are told that within fifty years, a nation in the world will kill over six million members of a religious minority. Which nation would you pick? If you were well-informed about world affairs, it is very unlikely that you would pick Germany. In 1900, Germany was a democratic, progressive nation. Jews living there enjoyed fuller acceptance in society than they did in Britain, France, or the United States. In 1900, probably much less than 13% of the German population favored killing all Jews. Thirty-five years later, circumstances had changed.”

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/lethal.htm

Kopel has an agenda and, like many on his side, likes to twist history. There are many better authors out there.

Just a small sample below and I heartily recommend the entire article.

Proponents of the theory sometimes point to the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as evidence that, as Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano put it, “those able to hold onto their arms and their basic right to self-defense were much more successful in resisting the Nazi genocide.” But as the Tablet’s Michael Moynihan points out, Napolitano’s history (curiously based on a citation of work by French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson) is a bit off. In reality, only about 20 Germans were killed, while some 13,000 Jews were massacred. The remaining 50,000 who survived were promptly sent off to concentration camps.

[Lumpy]

@LinusK

Let me try this.

1. Things associated with liberty:
   Education, free speech, tolerance, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and a commitment to non-violence.

2. Things NOT associated with liberty: guns.

3. Things associated with tyranny: guns.

4. Things NOT associated with tyranny: see #1.

A tautology; we’re democratic because we’re democratic. Let me put it this way: what’s the difference between the United States and Argentina, that explains why the latter has had multiple coups and juntas and we (so far) haven’t?

[Dave_Hartwick]

@Lumpy

A tautology; we’re democratic because we’re democratic. Let me put it this way: what’s the difference between the United States and Argentina, that explains why the latter has had multiple coups and juntas and we (so far) haven’t?

Is it guns?

[BobLibDem]

@Lumpy

A tautology; we’re democratic because we’re democratic. Let me put it this way: what’s the difference between the United States and Argentina, that explains why the latter has had multiple coups and juntas and we (so far) haven’t?

I’d hazard a guess and say that New World countries that were former British colonies have more stable democracies than those that were former Spanish colonies.