Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Santti]

Why does literally no other country need this if people need this protection so much?

A question that is asked a lot, but is never answered.

[Edge-]

Dude. It ain't even been 100 years since Nazis were running around. Putin pulled the trigger on Ukraine. The fuck are you talking about?

No, like, today. Why does no other country need such a heavily armed civilian populace?

I don't know why you're going back to WWII - which was won by professional militaries and not civilians with thompsons. Or why you bring up Ukraine, which would have been invaded regardless of their civilian populace being armed or not. Neither is relevant.

[Santti]

No, like, today. Why does no other country need such a heavily armed civilian populace?

I don't know why you're going back to WWII - which was won by professional militaries and not civilians with thompsons. Or why you bring up Ukraine, which would have been invaded regardless of their civilian populace being armed or not. Neither is relevant.

Yeah, seeing how soldiers are getting blown apart by something that might as well as be the vengeful finger of God, I doubt civilians would fare all that well in modern warfare.

[Endus]

Which just goes to show you they aren't actually looking for evidence. It isn't *that* hard to find examples of people using a gun to protect themselves.

https://www.ktvq.com/news/crime-watc...-her-residence

Anecdotal evidence doesn't counter statistical evidence on the population level. What the hell are you even smoking?

Owning a gun makes it significantly more likely that you or one of those in your house will die to gun violence. There is no statistically relevant protective factor whatsoever. Those are the facts of gun ownership, if you don't want to acknowledge them, you're more interesting in comforting narratives than actual truth.

Like, you can argue that you are statistically more likely to be shot by a gun in a house with a gun (which is really just a no shit, Sherlock kind of thing... kind of like how you are a lot more likely to drown if you have a pool or a lot more likely to be bit by a dog if you have a dog), but claiming that there is "zero evidence of any kind of protective effects" is complete bullshit and is immediately disproven by literally just checking the news.

You're the one claiming owning a gun for self-defense is justifiable. I'm pointing out that, in fact, it makes you more vulnerable to gun violence, because it introduces the chance for your own weapons to be used against someone in your family. Which is just straight facts. Gun ownership does not protect your family, it endangers your family.

If you want to disagree with that study, find me another population-level study that demonstrates any offsetting protective capacity whatsoever. Because all I can find out there are study after study that confirms there is no such thing, and gun ownership merely increases the threats to your own family.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...l-saves-lives/
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/do...PH.2013.301409
https://www.americanprogress.org/art...violent-crime/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...nse-gun-use-2/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hs...e-suggests-no/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/p...e-gun-use.html

There just isn't any credible evidence supporting the self-defense argument. Any gains are more than offset by the increase in criminal violence and harm.

[Grinning Serpent]

Yeah, seeing how soldiers are getting blown apart by something that might as well as be the vengeful finger of God, I doubt civilians would fare all that well in modern warfare.

That's because you don't understand how wars are fought, apparently.

- - - Updated - - -

No, like, today. Why does no other country need such a heavily armed civilian populace?

I don't know why you're going back to WWII - which was won by professional militaries and not civilians with thompsons. Or why you bring up Ukraine, which would have been invaded regardless of their civilian populace being armed or not. Neither is relevant.

People don't need a heavily armed populace until they do.

Where do you think the French resistance came from? Remnants of the French military, sure. But also a lot of incredibly brave and devoted French civilians. Not all of their materiel was French military leftovers, especially not at the start.

Why do you think colonizers disarmed the native population in South Africa, even before South Africa was a country? Why did the apartheid government ensure blacks couldn't own guns? Why was Rhodesia the way it was? Because it's pretty fucking hard to oppress people that can shoot you if they feel they have no other option.

Ukraine being armed wouldn't stop Putin, because Putin is insane/an idiot/both. But they would be even better at obliterating Russian military forces than they already are.

- - - Updated - - -

Anecdotal evidence doesn't counter statistical evidence on the population level. What the hell are you even smoking?

It's all anecdotes until there's enough of them that it becomes data. Anecdotes are still evidence, they are still data.

Even by the estimates of avowed gun control advocacy groups like Giffords, defensive gun use instances *start* in the several tens of thousands annually, and I've seen credible estimates up into the 200,000's. It partly matters exactly how "defensive gun use" is defined, but even the strictest definition (typically along the lines of "victim shot their attacker" and which was confirmed by police reports etc) you're still looking at... I want to say it was like 68,000?

You're the one citing an article and study that claims there is "zero evidence" of the defensive value of guns. I'm simply pointing out that that's either a bald-faced lie, or it's evidence of the people involved being rather ignorant of the issues they're purporting to cover.

Or they could just choose less incendiary, less bullshit language. If they stated it as "evidence indicates that potential harm of owning a gun outweighs defensive benefits," I wouldn't have any issue with that.

[Edge-]

People don't need a heavily armed populace until they do.

This is not an actual argument here.

I don't need an armored vehicle, until I do. Is it then reasonable to suggest that I should be able to purchase a police-grade armored vehicle?

Just in case I do?

Where do you think the French resistance came from? Remnants of the French military, sure. But also a lot of incredibly brave and devoted French civilians. Not all of their materiel was French military leftovers, especially not at the start.

Again, I'm talking about today. Not a resistance group 80 years ago that was also being supplied by allied powers while professional militaries did the mainstay of the fighting of the war.

You keep bouncing all over the place, and your points aren't any better no matter what the time period.

Ukraine being armed wouldn't stop Putin, because Putin is insane/an idiot/both. But they would be even better at obliterating Russian military forces than they already are.

Then why bring it up?

Do you think tens of thousands of Kalishnikov's in civilian hands would make a meaningful difference? This makes me think you haven't actually followed how the war has progressed or the crucial role that western-supplied hardware has been. Not to discount the efforts of the Ukrainian soldiers by any means, but no amount of heroism with small-arms fire is going to matter much against even a few poorly piloted Russian tanks.

So I don't see your point here either.

[Grinning Serpent]

This is not an actual argument here.

I don't need an armored vehicle, until I do. Is it then reasonable to suggest that I should be able to purchase a police-grade armored vehicle?

Just in case I do?

As far as I'm aware, there aren't any laws stopping you from fortifying your vehicle with armor plating, bullet proof glass, or other defensive measures. It's just very, very expensive.

Again, I'm talking about today. Not a resistance group 80 years ago that was also being supplied by allied powers while professional militaries did the mainstay of the fighting of the war.

You keep bouncing all over the place, and your points aren't any better no matter what the time period.

Today's no different from back then. If you want to know how effective "dudes with rifles" are, look at literally any of the asymmetric warfare taking place across the past thirty or forty years.

Then why bring it up?

Do you think tens of thousands of Kalishnikov's in civilian hands would make a meaningful difference? This makes me think you haven't actually followed how the war has progressed or the crucial role that western-supplied hardware has been. Not to discount the efforts of the Ukrainian soldiers by any means, but no amount of heroism with small-arms fire is going to matter much against even a few poorly piloted Russian tanks.

So I don't see your point here either.

It's not the best example because of just how wildly incompetent the Russians have been, to be sure. The relevance of an armed populace is more valuable when there's an actual occupation or invasion taking place. Armed civilians can form insurgencies behind enemy lines, harassing and damaging supply lines and infrastructure in areas the enemy forces have pushed into and occupied, supporting their own army's efforts indirectly.

This, again, is established throughout military history.

[Edge-]

The French resistance is also FOR gun control: France had it and still managed to get armed when they needed it, and formed a decent defensive front/resistance force. The French had guns, but the Nazi force was THAT much stronger and this idea that the "I have a gun I'm a hero!" people would be ready to hand them in if an actual force came and took them. An argument MIGHT be feasible in TRAINING civilians for such a situation should it occur, but just "being able to get firearms" is not that.

Small arms were well known to be effective against Tiger tanks, of course.

It's not as if resistance efforts were much more effective when focused on not engaging in direct combat, including intelligence gathering, sabotage, and targeted assassinations. Things that don't require an armed populace to do.

Also, the lack of a Second Amendment not meaning that gun ownership is banned. Which is a weird conclusion to come to. It just switches it from a right to a privilege, that's it.

[Edge-]

As far as I'm aware, there aren't any laws stopping you from fortifying your vehicle with armor plating, bullet proof glass, or other defensive measures. It's just very, very expensive.

I don't mean just fortifying my vehicle. I mean buying an armored personel carrier. You know, the kind that drive over cars and shit.

You know, just in case.

Since the bar you set was "just in case".

Today's no different from back then. If you want to know how effective "dudes with rifles" are, look at literally any of the asymmetric warfare taking place across the past thirty or forty years.

The French resistance, and all resistance movements during WWII, did not primarily engage in gun battles with the Nazi occupiers. Usually because it was a terrible idea with them being outmanned and outgunned. See my post above, that's not how resistance operations really work.

It's not the best example because of just how wildly incompetent the Russians have been, to be sure.

No, it's simply a bad example.

The relevance of an armed populace is more valuable when there's an actual occupation or invasion taking place.

Cite some examples then?

And if you bring up the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq I'm going to ask you to look into the histories of the US in those regions and why that might have played a role there, where there is no analog in the United States (the Michigan Militia ain't the Taliban).

Armed civilians can form insurgencies behind enemy lines, harassing and damaging supply lines and infrastructure in areas the enemy forces have pushed into and occupied, supporting their own army's efforts indirectly.

This, again, is established throughout military history.

Why does no other developed nation see value in this, then?

Do you think it's worth the astronomically high rates of unnecessary deaths and injuries that widespread gun ownership has resulted in, "just in case"?

[Deus Mortis]

I don't mean just fortifying my vehicle. I mean buying an armored personel carrier. You know, the kind that drive over cars and shit.

You know, just in case.

Since the bar you set was "just in case".

It is legal to own an APC, as well as a tank in the US, however if you want the weaponry included that is a different story.

[ringpriest]

In all seriousness I'm still not sure what actual practical utility the Second Amendment has overall, beyond people literally forming religious sects based around guns (I'm not kidding) or making it their whole-ass identity. Though neither of these things would be disallowed without a Second Amendment as a lack of a right to own guns does not mean that guns are actually banned.

The idea that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms is a relatively modern invention (and mostly related to various flavors of what is now called the "culture war"). The Second Amendment's origins have a great deal to do with the "militia clause" of the 2nd (which the ammosexuals and gun cultists prefer to ignore).

Article I, Section 8 "Power of Congress" of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, that Congress shall have the power:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now, in the context of those passages, and recalling that the people of what had become the United States had just finished a war that had been ignited by the central (British) government attempting to disarm colony militias, look at the Second Amendment again:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

(The placement of commas in the original version was not standardized.)

The Second Amendment is to ensure that the Federal Government may not dissolve or disarm the State militias under the color of "organizing, arming, and disciplining" them. Insofar as the U.S. does have an individual right to bear arms, it would come from common law, not the 2nd.

[Edge-]

It is legal to own an APC, as well as a tank in the US, however if you want the weaponry included that is a different story.

Huh, well today I learned.

You'd figure there might be some kind of limitations on them but I guess they're at least cost-prohibitive enough that chances of someone financing them for some wrongdoing are pretty slim.

[Grinning Serpent]

Small arms were well known to be effective against Tiger tanks, of course.

It's not as if resistance efforts were much more effective when focused on not engaging in direct combat, including intelligence gathering, sabotage, and targeted assassinations. Things that don't require an armed populace to do.

Also, the lack of a Second Amendment not meaning that gun ownership is banned. Which is a weird conclusion to come to. It just switches it from a right to a privilege, that's it.

I have repeatedly explained to you the nature of insurgencies and how armed civilians would actually resist an occupying military force. You damn well know it's not "Bubba shoots at a tank with his AR-15," yet you keep insisting as though that's what "resisting tyranny" means in context of the right to bear arms.

Honestly, dude, why are you even here? You clearly don't want to have an adult discussion, you just want to beat your dick in front of everyone and ask them to tell you how turgid it is. You seriously have no better use for your time?

[Endus]

It's all anecdotes until there's enough of them that it becomes data. Anecdotes are still evidence, they are still data.

And the data we do have contradicts the anecdotes you're citing. That's the point.

Even by the estimates of avowed gun control advocacy groups like Giffords, defensive gun use instances *start* in the several tens of thousands annually, and I've seen credible estimates up into the 200,000's.

So, Giffords, right? Let's go with Giffords.

https://giffords.org/blog/2020/10/th...th-a-gun-myth/
"Despite what the gun lobby wants you to believe, the truth is that self-defensive gun use is rare, and that guns are many times more likely to be used for suicide or homicide than they are for self defense. In 2018, for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there were 34 gun homicides, 82 gun suicides, and two unintentional gun deaths. "

So, not exactly supporting your position. At all. They're directly opposed to it.

You're the one citing an article and study that claims there is "zero evidence" of the defensive value of guns. I'm simply pointing out that that's either a bald-faced lie, or it's evidence of the people involved being rather ignorant of the issues they're purporting to cover.

Multiple articles, multiple studies, from different angles and data sources. All confirming the same conclusions, which go against what you're claiming. While you haven't cited anything backing yourself up, yet.

You're just demonstrating a complete failure to understand the actual facts of the issue, just cherry-picking specific instances that feel like they back you up and willfully ignoring the overwhelming majority that contradict you.

[Grinning Serpent]

Why does no other developed nation see value in this, then?

Do you think it's worth the astronomically high rates of unnecessary deaths and injuries that widespread gun ownership has resulted in, "just in case"?

No. It's because if your population is not armed, they lack the ultimate "fuck it, start over" option.

[Endus]

No. It's because if your population is not armed, they lack the ultimate "fuck it, start over" option.

That option largely doesn't exist, and many of the instances where popular rebellions occur, whether or not the populace had proper armament really didn't factor in.

This is a myth perpetrated by American pro-gun advocates and which has no real historical basis whatsoever.

[Grinning Serpent]

You're just demonstrating a complete failure to understand the actual facts of the issue, just cherry-picking specific instances that feel like they back you up and willfully ignoring the overwhelming majority that contradict you.

You and I can completely agree on what the data indicates - and understand, I have not disagreed with those conclusions, I am taking exception to your hyperbolic statement in regards to it - but that doesn't matter, because what the data suggests we should do (sane gun control, like what the Canadians or Aussies have) is not feasible or remotely possible in this country for an array of reasons.

I have not disagreed with the data presented or its conclusions, just your hyperbole.

- - - Updated - - -

That option largely doesn't exist, and many of the instances where popular rebellions occur, whether or not the populace had proper armament really didn't factor in.

This is a myth perpetrated by American pro-gun advocates and which has no real historical basis whatsoever.

Yeah, sure. It was so ineffective that it convinced Reagan to sponsor gun control for California when Black folks started following racist white cops with rifles to keep them honest.

Definitely not effective as a deterrent.

[Endus]

You and I can completely agree on what the data indicates - and understand, I have not disagreed with those conclusions, I am taking exception to your hyperbolic statement in regards to it - but that doesn't matter, because what the data suggests we should do (sane gun control, like what the Canadians or Aussies have) is not feasible or remotely possible in this country for an array of reasons.

I have not disagreed with the data presented or its conclusions, just your hyperbole.

What hyperbole? I've largely been quoting directly.

Yeah, sure. It was so ineffective that it convinced Reagan to sponsor gun control for California when Black folks started following racist white cops with rifles to keep them honest.

Definitely not effective as a deterrent.

That's . . . not a rebellion. You're moving goalposts.

[Edge-]

No. It's because if your population is not armed, they lack the ultimate "fuck it, start over" option.

Do you think that armed civilians are able of defeating the United States militar?

[Elegiac]

It was so ineffective that it convinced Reagan to sponsor gun control for California when Black folks started following racist white cops with rifles to keep them honest.

Successfully playing on white anxiety does not mean said anxiety has a rational basis.

Case in point: the Black Panther Party being armed in no way stopped it from being eliminated over subsequent decades. There has never been a single instance of tyranny in this country that civilian gun ownership has mitigated or stopped.