If there were thousands of people shooting at cops who were confiscating guns, I expect their response would be similar to what they’ve threatened to do if the #BlackLivesMatter movement gets out of hand: walk off the job, work slowdowns, “smile and wave” policing, etc. In other words, I think they’d quit trying to enforce the gun confiscation law.
I doubt the government could “round them all up” anymore than they could round up all Muslims if 0.1% of them decided to commit acts of terrorism. And if they tried, I expect it’d inspire even more people to fight against a government which would be seen as (yet again) betraying the Constitution. Not to mention the fact that there aren’t enough cops, soldiers, or prisons to “round up” tens of millions of gun owners.
If there are thousands of people blowing up buildings and shooting at random people, and the cops do a work slowdown or ‘smile and wave,’ there will shortly be a lot of openings in police departments. The people being shot at and working in those buildings, and their friends/relatives/survivors, will bring so much pressure to bear upon the politicians who pay the cops that the slowdown will speed up again. (Not to mention that cops have friends and families too–random acts of terrorism affect them as well.
Even people who have sympathy for the protesters are likely to change their minds when the first day care or school bus is attacked.
Moreover, as has been repeatedly stated on this thread, a law requiring registration or confiscation isn’t going to pass until and unless there is a huge shift in public opinion. Once that shift happens, though, it is very likely that rounding up rogue gun owners isn’t going to be seen as “betraying the Constitution.” It’s going to be seen as entirely appropriate and lawful, much as the Patriot Act was (and in many quarters still is) seen as an appropriate response to existential threats.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Guns are the tool for self defense. Martial arts, baseball bats, rape whistles are all nice when the other guy isn’t armed, but guns are the trump card and the only tool that can equalize strength and size disparities effectively.
Let me quote you:
How is “outlawing self defense” not exactly what you’re proposing here?
I think you overestimate your strength. Its pretty established that guns convey enormous ease to harming and killing people the scale of which is not comparable to someone unarmed or armed with a melee weapon, so I’m not really going to bother to debate this point.
My response was to the question of why guns are a bad analogy for insurance and I think I’ve argued that point well enough. We can go back to talking about cowardice or whether guns = bad but its different altogether from the analogy. Don’t try to mix things up and use one answer I give as a response to something else.
Most people don’t need a gun and will never use one in self defense. Overestimating your need and being afraid that you don’t have it is cowardly because while insurance protects you, it doesn’t also kill for you. If you want protection, carry a shield or wear body armor and invest in some good running shoes. Having an offensive weapon when you’re clearly not in danger smacks of cowardice and the protection you seek is likely a an illusion anyway
I don’t think guns by itself are bad, they are an inanimate object. They can be used for lots of ill, however, and little else, so I think owning guns are a bad idea.
No, this literally happens every single time when gun bans or confiscation is debated. It will always happen because, credit to your side, you have a winning argument that keeps political power on your side. But it is not a logical argument.
But if you want to prove me wrong, go ahead. What will your response be if they pass a law banning all guns, and nothing else about the country changes, and they come to your door to get them? Will you turn it over without a fight? Will you consider the US some proto-Nazi state that’s one Hitler-esque personality away from concentration camps? Or will you give up your guns and move on with your life and still consider America to be free, only with one thing you disagree with?
That’s fine, I misread your intentions, sorry. But I think I have good reason to based on the typical responses I get from gun debates. To clarify my position, I think there is absolutely nothing inherently cowardly about people who want to be safer by banning guns. To me, its logical. Take away something that has the potential to cause enormous harm while providing little in the way of defense. That we don’t want to be shot is rational, not cowardly. Hell, politically, it may even be called brave because it goes against the grain and is often a losing proposition.
The coward part comes from people who exaggerate the oppression to hyperbolic proportions in speech yet in action refuse to act the part. To me, that proves they are all talk and too afraid to actually do anything about it. Not everyone is like that, but a good deal of them are
There are conditional modifiers for a reason. There is pretty much never a 100% for any large group’s belief or behavior and I try, a little bit, to not tar every single person. That’s why I say things like “generally” or “usually” or “most” or “many”. You haven’t cracked some riddle by figuring it out, it was by design that I don’t try to paint every single gun supporter like cowards, just many many many of them
In very limited situations, rules for typical civilization can be and are violated. But you’re trying to use that situation to justify continued and pervasive gun ownership. I can use the same justification to say blacks are always rioting and killing people, and that would be equally as wrong. I can also use the much more often happening of gun violence to justify a complete gun ban, but I know you would be against that too wouldn’t you?
The question wasn’t how many burglaries there are in the US but how many times were you burgled? I said I’ve never needed to use a gun in my life, therefore it wouldn’t make sense for me to have a gun. If you or XT or that other guy never needed to use one, it would make equally less sense for you guys to own.
Also, I scanned the PDF and it didn’t seem to differentiate between burglary and robbery, of course robbery meaning that someone breaks in while you’re home. Tell me, what good is your gun when your house is burgled when you’re not around? Do you have it set like a Roomba, shooting random intruders? Or will a gun simply be a prize the burglar stumbles on to? If the PDF makes a difference between the two, I didn’t see it, but maybe you can point that out to me
Guns are useless in burglaries. You’re not going to shoot someone when you’re not around
And depending on the severity, I’m fine granting temporary licenses to carry for those people and those who face similar situations.
Then same question to you as XT: If the US bans guns but nothing else changes, will you give them up when they come for it? Will you consider the US still free, or will you exaggerate the importance of having one type of item as a disproportionate attack to your freedom?
Could you quote the section in that which says that SCOTUS decided that guns are the only way to defend oneself? Maybe I just haven’t had enough caffeine this morning, but I can’t see it in that link you gave me.
So that time I used my roommate’s boken to keep our house from being broken into, I wasn’t defending myself? Huh.
This argument makes no sense to me. I wear a seat belt even though I’ve never needed it. I pay for homeowner’s and life insurance even though I’ve never needed them. Most police and soldiers never fire their weapons, but they still carry them. The USA has never used an ICBM, but we still keep them. Surely you can understand that “past performance is no guarantee of future results”, right?
Just because I only have a 1% chance of needing a seat belt or a gun or a fire extinguisher on any given day doesn’t mean it’s illogical for me to want one.
Absent food, water, and shelter, only through arrogance does a person attempt to describe what other people need. Fortunately, your estimation of what others need is worthless.
It literally happens every single time? And yet, here we have a thread where the only one engaging in behavior like what you posit is yourself. I suppose it’s a self fulfilling prediction.
The key part of this is “but nothing else changes”. This isn’t possible. It would be similar to saying, what if the 1st amendment is repealed, but nothing else changes, would you still engage in protest? What if the 13th amendment were repealed, but nothing else changes, would you engage in slavery or criticize those who do? The hypothetical change being discussed is so far from reality that a number of assumptions have to be made for the hypothetical to come to pass.
Your condition that nothing else changes is nonsense. It depends on how you get there. If space aliens invade the Earth and enslave the human race to be consumed as an energy source, and as part of their enslavement they ban guns, I’m not giving them up. Everything else is variable.
Ask yourself what tool professionals exclusively use to defend themselves, and why that might be. And then ask whether banning that tool for non-professionals allows them any other tool of similar effectiveness. There’s a reason cops, soldiers, and security professionals don’t feel a wooden training sword is sufficient for their protection. And that is the same reason why it is not sufficient for citizens to rely on for self defense.
I’ve covered the insurance thing but I’ll do so again. Insurance has no opportunity to be used for offense. Its harmless, you having it will not result in anyone else suffering. A gun is different, therefore it needs to be treated differently. And don’t compare a country’s action with a person’s, its not even in the same league
This isn’t a philosophical discussion on whether man is truly an island, this is a discussion of the necessity of one particular type of item and the cowardice of people who overestimate their vulnerability without one
Its not, but you don’t have to believe me. We’ll see as this thread goes on. I would love to be not called a fascist for wanting to ban guns because I think its perfectly compatible with freedom. In fact, I feel we have MORE freedom without guns
Ok, fair enough, but the stats don’t differentiate between occupied home and unoccupied. I maintain that your gun is completely useless when you’re not at home to defend yourself, cutting down the amount of instances where you think you need a gun.
I think you’re dodging the question. I think you’re perfectly capable of imagining a scenario in which guns are banned and confiscated but you don’t want to admit you’ll do something illegal to keep them, thus proving my point. I think that its not a stretch to not fight the hypothetical because gun restriction laws have been made in the past, such as the Brady Bill, which outlawed certain types of guns to a nationwide degree, and politics have only recently in the past few decades deteriorated to such an acrimonious point where “compromise” is a bad word and shouting replaced honest debate. So if you don’t want to answer the question, fine, but I have my answer. I’m sure that satisfies no one though
Your argument started out as, basically, “you shouldn’t have a gun because you’ve never needed one in the past”. When it was pointed out to you that people keep and do all sorts of things to avoid harms that have never befallen them, your argument changed to “guns are dangerous”. Is that your way of conceding the “you shouldn’t have a gun because you’ve never needed one in the past” point, or do you imagine that your “guns are dangerous” argument is somehow connected to the need for rarely-used safety measures?
Indeed. The “difference” being pointed out between guns and insurance has nothing whatsoever to do with the owner being a coward. Guns are also made of metal, whereas insurance is printed on paper. So what? So what if guns can cause harm to someone? The only way it makes sense to call a gun owner a coward, in that context, is that he’s too chicken to use his bare hands for self-defense. Real men don’t need guns. Do you ever see Batman use a gun? Well… there you go!
This isn’t a discussion of the necessity of one particular type of item and the cowardice of people who overestimate their vulnerability without one, it’s a philisophical discussion about how arrogant it is for a person to deign to believe they can know the needs of another.
See, I can make sweeping pronouncements too!
I’m not sure what your point is actually - you’re kind of all over the place. Is this like kicking over the game board and declaring victory? Multiple people in this thread have said that for the scenario of guns being banned to come to pass, many many more underlying changes in the makeup and sentiment of the country would have to come first. That’s reality. You are asking about the scenario if everything stays the same, but guns are banned. That’s fantasy.
So yes, I can think of a scenario and where I would keep guns after they are banned - if space aliens started enslaving the Earth. I cannot think of any scenario where guns are banned but nothing else changes. But please, indulge me. play it out, how would that work exactly? How do you suppose to repeal the 2nd amendment with nothing else changing?
Do you suppose that the fact that guns are overwhelmingly used for self defense and by professionals might be because, odds are, criminals are *also *going to be using guns?
In other words, the argument is circular- “we need guns because they’ve got guns because we’ve got guns because they’ve got guns…”
At some point, someone’s going to point out that the problem is guns, and that throwing more guns into the mix only makes things worse.
Do criminals only target professionals? You’re making my arguments for me. Criminals target indiscriminately, and therefore we should allow guns to be carried indiscriminately by anyone who wants one and can afford it.
What you’re saying is analogous to arguing that only professional firefighters should be allowed to have fire extinguishers because the rest of us just don’t need them. Modern building codes make house fires a rarity. Most of us will never experience one. I mean, maybe back in 1873, fire extinguishers were useful for putting out fires in rugged pioneer towns like Chicago, but nowadays it’s just irrational cowardice to presume you need one. Widespread ownership of fire extinguishers just encourages more fires. When your dinner ignites, and seconds matter, the fire department is only minutes away.
I see now that you’re making more of an “arms race” argument. Which would be a valid argument (not a winning one, all by itself, but certainly not invalid) if crime hadn’t been falling significantly for over 20 years. We’re seeing something like half the crime our parents did. Crime in the US is at a 100 year low, while there are more guns than ever.
I’m not going to say that gun ownership is the cause of the drop in crime – I believe it’s merely orthogonal – but saying more guns equals more crime is factually wrong.
(And don’t try a “gotcha” here: “Ah, so since crime is down we’re even less likely to need guns in self defense!” I agree. But that’s never been my argument. Just like fire codes didn’t make fire extinguishers unnecessary, lower crime doesn’t make self-defense unnecessary. All that is required is the threat. As long as crime and fire are still threats, fire extinguishers and firearms should be widespread, legal to own, and people should be taught how to use them safely and effectively.)
And this is one of the reasons I really hate getting involved in any gun control thread- it quickly devolves into strawmen. Lots and lots of strawmen.
I didn’t say that criminals only target professionals, so therefore the rest of your argument is invalid.
If fire extinguishers had a good chance of accidentally killing their owners and were often used in the commission of crimes and were stolen so that *others *could use them to commit crimes, they’d be a lot more regulated than they are now.
No, you just said that it’s valid for professionals to carry firearms, because criminals with guns target them. If it’s valid for professionals to carry, it’s valid for everyone else, because they are also targeted by criminals.
And guns are more regulated than fire extinguishers, so does that mean you feel everything is hunky dory? What exactly are you debating here? I’m pretty clearly on the side of keeping self defense a fundamental right and the tools necessary for it legal.
Are you for or against the right of self defense? I don’t believe someone can be for a right while simultaneously wanting to ban or restrict the tools necessary for the exercise of that right. If I said “Everyone should be free to say what they want, but we should ban the use of printing presses, the internet or the airwaves for anyone who isn’t a government-approved professional writer” would you think I was for free speech, or against it?
