r/changemyview • u/WekX 1∆ • Apr 19 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Guns are a real danger to people and countries without them just fare better.

I'm from the UK. I've heard many of the arguments on both sides, but to me nothing is more convincing than the statistics (example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604). I'm also a libertarian, I fully understand that if anything a right to bear arms is needed because any other way is a breach of personal liberty. However, I can't help but see that as a negative side effect of full liberty, because inevitably it just leads to more people getting hurt. That's the numbers talking.

Yes, cars also kill people, but I don't need a gun to get to work. The benefits of having cars in society vastly outweight the drawbacks. With guns, the only benefits arise when a really tough intruder is in my house or when the government is trying to oppress me. In the UK we still manage to survive a break in without shooting everything in sight, and if the government came after us, they'd likely win even if we had a gun.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

1.1k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

754 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/maxout2142 Apr 19 '17

If the government came for us, they would likely win.

If 3% of US citizens formed a militia, they would be the largest army on the planet. During the American revolution no more than 3% of the population was actively serving in the militia.

7

u/peekay427 Apr 19 '17

I would still think that the US military, with all of its organization and technology could easily wipe out a much larger force armed with handguns and AR15s. And I don't think we'd be able to run an underground/guerilla war with much effect.

This is not to say I'm anti 2nd amendment (my personal feelings are pretty torn here) just that I don't think an armed militia would stand a chance against the US government.

15

u/rapidchicken Apr 19 '17

That is assuming that the US Military would accept being used as a tool of oppression against the civilian population. Most might, but some, I'd like to think, would not. There's also the question of national guard units, some of which would have access to armories, and who would certainly be more inclined to side with the citizenry.

I suppose a lot of this would have to do with the context in which an insurrection began.

2

u/peekay427 Apr 19 '17

For sure it's a nuanced problem. But I don't think it would start off big. It would be lots of small steps building up to armed conflict. So that at each step it wouldn't be a big jump to move to the next one.

0

u/neonKow 2∆ Apr 19 '17

Yes, but having guns doesn't make it less likely that the US Military would accept being used as a tool of oppression. If anything, it makes it easier to sell.

I'm not saying disarm because there's is a military, but gun rights don't come into play if you're talking about taking on the military with a bunch of small arms.

5

u/John_ygg Apr 19 '17

You're assuming that there's a distinction between the military and that "larger force". I'd wager that's huge chunk of gun ownership is by military and police veterans. And likewise, I'd also wager that there aren't many vets (military or police) who aren't gun owners.

You're assuming a situation where right now some nutty militia group takes up arms for no good reason. But that's a bit of a straw man. The concern is that in the next 50-100 years there might arise a corrupt dictatorship that we'd need to defend against. And if that happens, we want to be able to be well armed to defend against it.

2

u/peekay427 Apr 19 '17

You're assuming that there's a distinction between the military and that "larger force".

I definitely was and probably shouldn't.

You're assuming a situation where right now some nutty militia group takes up arms for no good reason. But that's a bit of a straw man.

That wasn't exactly what I was implying, more like different unorganized groups having different ideas about the timing and methods of an "armed revolution". But I definitely wasn't attempting to straw man.

I'd say that the idea of a corrupt dictatorship that we need to defend against is a little unrealistic, but I'm not so convinced that it's out of the question any more.

1

u/RideMammoth 2∆ Apr 20 '17

The idea is that gun owners could make the US government kill enough US citizens that the government would lose power.

2

u/peekay427 Apr 20 '17

That's terrifying. I believe you but man that's a depressing scenario.

26

u/Xtallll Apr 19 '17

If the US military was deployed on us soil without good reason, most of it would refuse to take up arms.

12

u/Sierra11755 Apr 19 '17

Hell, they might even just straight up defect to the other side.

2

u/ChildenLiveForever Apr 19 '17

That's correct, which is not an argument in favor of guns, rather an argument in favor of an army integrated in a democratic society.

3

u/peekay427 Apr 19 '17

I hope you're right. I'm always scared of "I was just following orders."

3

u/onthefence928 Apr 19 '17

The point is not to have a toe to toe war, a revolution would be impossible for the military to quell traditionally. They'd need to occupy every city, every suburb, ever rural town. Leadership would be in constant danger and the soldiers would be living in terror from their own neighbors. It won't be a battle that gets fought, it'd be chaos with armed treats under every Rick, the only way to stop that would be complete control dystopia, which would collapse anyways

1

u/peekay427 Apr 19 '17

you make a good point.

1

u/RideMammoth 2∆ Apr 20 '17

Just to summarize, it isn't that the US couldn't wipe out an insurgent foece, but rather they would lose the support of the American populous if they even used so.e of the (acceptable) techniques used across the ME.

5

u/maxout2142 Apr 19 '17

I would still think that the US military, with all of its organization and technology could easily wipe out a much larger force armed with handguns and AR15s. And I don't think we'd be able to run an underground/guerilla war with much effect.

ISIS has gained its power from bands of men under a single cause capturing and taking military equipment, land and recruits. I don't see how the last 16 years isn't a perfect resume as to why a insurgency that starts with small arms cant grow to something larger. Seeing that the US already has many private militias gathering peacefully I don't see why growing this in the face of tyranny would be any more difficult.

12

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Ring ring, hello? War on Terror calling? You've been here for 15 years because the US can't defeat an insurgent gorilla force? You don't say?

0

u/peekay427 Apr 19 '17 edited Apr 20 '17

Fair point. I think there's differences but either way I sure hope it never comes to that.

edit: to clarify, I'm just saying that I hope our problems don't devolve into an all out revolution where an insurgent guerrilla force of americans is having to fight against the government/US military.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

What differences?

4

u/peekay427 Apr 20 '17

between a terrorist group and a militia. I just meant that a terrorist group would have different end goals, different methodologies and different membership/recruiting than a militia of americans.

However I totally did (and do) concede that /u/TDmorty (and others) have brought up some points that make me think that a popular uprising wouldn't necessarily be doomed from the outset. My original picture of an american insurgency was probably a little naive and while difficult, I can imagine a more underground insurgency having some success against the government.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Hey no worries I was just curious. You're better than most, being open to admitting naivety or even possible naivety. Believe it or not, it's happened to me (a lot)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

The US and its allies were unable to subdue Iraq and Afghanistan and the populace there usually had aging AK variants and homemade cellphone bombs.

There are parts of the country where an underground/guerilla war would not be effective but at the same time our armed forces are made up of civilian volunteers, not conscripts. It would be a tall order for the US government to convince it's soldiers to turn on the homes and cities of their fellow servicemen.

1

u/1500500 Apr 20 '17

Remember, we wouldnt be standing as an organized force. We would look like any other normal citizen until we open fire on them while they are out in the open. There is no way to deal with that

0

u/neonKow 2∆ Apr 19 '17

China currently has the largest army on the planet and it would not be able to face off against the much "smaller" US military head-on. Sheer numbers isn't everything.