Shooting in San Bernadino
-
And is there any case where the people having guns were able to overthrow the government?
Considering we are talking about the people vs. the military - the logic that we need guns to stop the military would suggest that we need bombers, fighter jets, machine guns, mortars, howitzers, tanks and more, too. Guns won't do it, we need an opposing irregular military force equal to or greater than the actual regular military.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And is there any case where the people having guns were able to overthrow the government?
Considering we are talking about the people vs. the military - the logic that we need guns to stop the military would suggest that we need bombers, fighter jets, machine guns, mortars, howitzers, tanks and more, too. Guns won't do it, we need an opposing irregular military force equal to or greater than the actual regular military.
That is assuming the US military would decide to fight and kill their own people. Although, I am sure there are more drones in service then we could even fathom.
In April 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessed the F-22's cost to be $361 million per aircraft, with $28 billion invested in development and testing; the Unit Procurement Cost was estimated at $178 million in 2006, based on a production run of 181 aircraft.
How many drones could the government buy with just $361 million? It's a scary high number when you think about it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And is there any case where the people having guns were able to overthrow the government?
Considering we are talking about the people vs. the military - the logic that we need guns to stop the military would suggest that we need bombers, fighter jets, machine guns, mortars, howitzers, tanks and more, too. Guns won't do it, we need an opposing irregular military force equal to or greater than the actual regular military.
The Iraqi and Syrian Army have aircraft and tanks. ISIS is doing a pretty good job against them with guns.
-
I'm not saying that the idea of having guns to protect us from the government is a bad one, that's why we have guns in the first place. Only that in the real world, it does not hold up or apply in a country where there is a military. In the 1700s when muskets were all that people had, farmers with guns were reasonably able to stop soldiers with guns because the farmers outnumbered them by such a huge degree and the presumption was that lots of military would turn on their government to support any farmer uprising.
But in the real world of the 21st century, a popular militant uprising of the people would have a few problems:
- The group that has the guns is also the same group that supports the military. It would be about power by force, not a government of the people.
- The country is heavily divided and any uprising would be neighbour against neighbour, not the people against the government. For 250 years, the nation has been divided in such a way that a popular uprising is impossible. At best it would be a communist style overthrow of the people with the government consolidating power moreso that it is.
- The military would simply take over. The people would have no ability to slow them down from mowing the country down.
- Best case scenario we would end up like Syria today.
-
@IRJ said:
The Iraqi and Syrian Army have aircraft and tanks. ISIS is doing a pretty good job against them with guns.
Right, if the goal is torture and destruction of human life and not a new government of the people, you can do it. If the goal is to set up a new, functional government of the people you cannot.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Is there any case where guns have been used to put in a new government of the people? Or only for dictators?
New governments, yes...New people in power, absolutely! New governments of the people, yea, not so much. One half trying to overthrow the other half just makes for a long and bloody fight... and then when that fight is over, the losers are resentful and the cycle begins again (especially over in the Middle east)...
-
Guns don't kill people, People kill people.
When a drunk kills someone, do you blame the car?
-
So if we assume that people want to keep guns because they want to tear the country apart and inflict fear in the populace and don't care about having a functional country at the end and that the goal is not for the people but for a new government to "own" the people through the use of guns, yes, we should let people keep their guns.
And in Syria keep in mind that they only took over once the government had collapsed, not while it was functional.
-
@anonymous said:
Guns don't kill people, People kill people.
When a drunk kills someone, do you blame the car?
No one blamed guns.
-
@anonymous said:
Guns don't kill people, People kill people.
When a drunk kills someone, do you blame the car?
The government tried to take away Alcohol too... see how well that worked out? lol. Some of you would be most unhappy if Uncle Sam shut down the breweries spread across the US.
-
@scottalanmiller @iroal made it seems like the issue was that guns are easy to get in the USA. Guns are the issue, people are the issue.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Is there any case where guns have been used to put in a new government of the people? Or only for dictators?
New governments, yes...New people in power, absolutely! New governments of the people, yea, not so much. One half trying to overthrow the other half just makes for a long and bloody fight... and then when that fight is over, the losers are resentful and the cycle begins again (especially over in the Middle east)...
That's the problem. Not that guns can't shake things up, they just don't shake things up with a positive outcome. The freedom to have guns increases the risk of losing all freedoms entirely.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
The Iraqi and Syrian Army have aircraft and tanks. ISIS is doing a pretty good job against them with guns.
Right, if the goal is torture and destruction of human life and not a new government of the people, you can do it. If the goal is to set up a new, functional government of the people you cannot.
Guerrilla warfare is nothing new. The germans did it against the romans, Americans against the British, Vietnam against the Americans, Afghanistan against the Russians. In every one of those scenarios the guerrillas with inferior technology were able to win.
Then you look at places like Nazi Germany and North Korea were the people were unarmed by the government while things were good. It wasn't until after they were disarmed that things got bad.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Is there any case where guns have been used to put in a new government of the people? Or only for dictators?
New governments, yes...New people in power, absolutely! New governments of the people, yea, not so much. One half trying to overthrow the other half just makes for a long and bloody fight... and then when that fight is over, the losers are resentful and the cycle begins again (especially over in the Middle east)...
That's the problem. Not that guns can't shake things up, they just don't shake things up with a positive outcome. The freedom to have guns increases the risk of losing all freedoms entirely.
You give up your ability to fight, and you give up everything to the governments. If you look back in history, governments don't exactly have a great track record.
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller @iroal made it seems like the issue was that guns are easy to get in the USA.
He only said that it was amazing that they were so easy to get.
Likewise, Europeans are shocked by how much the US encourages you to drink and drive by putting bars spread out and refusing to provide public transportation. In the exact same way that the world can't believe how easily we let people with bad decision making get guns they are also shocked by how little we care about drunk driving.
It isn't that the people with the guns and the people drinking and driving aren't the ones to blame, but that people in America prefer to blame them rather than stopping the behaviour and protecting lives. Different priorities. Europeans can't believe how little we care about actually stopping either thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
He only said that it was amazing that they were so easy to get.
Right, but guns aren't the problem, regardless.
-
@IRJ said:
Then you look at places like Nazi Germany and North Korea were the people were unarmed by the government while things were good. It wasn't until after they were disarmed that things got bad.
Nazi Germany did not disarm the people. The Nazis reversed the gun restrictions that had been there. This is often misquoted to make it seem like Hitler was anti-gun to gain control of the people. Quite the opposite.
Germany had strict gun control and removed it under the Nazis. Today Germany is among the safest places on earth and also has nearly the strictest gun control. Germany is possibly the best example in modern history of gun control directly being tied to good things and loosening it to bad ones.
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
He only said that it was amazing that they were so easy to get.
Right, but guns aren't the problem, regardless.
No, but ability to get them, people being allowed to have them, encouraging people to use them, suggesting that killing is the answer to disagreements with the government are all part of it.
-
Just like bombs aren't the problem, disease isn't the problem. But dropping bombs, spreading disease, firing a gun... those are the problems.
