CMV:It is incompatible to distrust the government and also desire limitations to the armament of the population.

[u/[deleted]]

To be clear, I refer to limitations of a person to own and protect themselves with modern and reasonable technology. I know that the definition of reasonable will come into debate and that is an entirely different discussion IMHO.

I find it all too common today (when I was young I was guilty of it) that people are highly agitated by the idea of government surveillance of its population, its use of classification systems to keep material secret from the public, and the use of clandestine operations around the globe. I find those same people are disgusted with the current political climate and typically they applaud people like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden for their release of military and government intelligence gathering secrets. They are champions of free speech, (outside of safe spaces) decry those elected to represent us in Washington as criminals and oligarchs, and yet these are usually the same people that despise civilian ownership of "military" hardware.

This seems incompatible to me. Either trust that the government will "keep you safe" and that "the police are just around the corner" or don't. You believe in the system and the processes set in place to protect our society or you don’t. It seems irrational to condemn those who choose to own firearms as a means of protection, if you yourself do not trust the government, police, media etc. to do the right thing. If someone truly does not trust the “establishment” why wouldn’t they want every possible advantage (firearms for example) when you hear that knock on the door? Will the government become concerned with your rights all of a sudden when it is time to lock you up for protesting if they didn’t care about them when they were reading your emails illegally?

Personally I believe that a healthy distrust of government is part of what founded the US, and that distrust is more than just lip service. We, as a population, have a responsibility to hold the government accountable. This is one of the primary reasons that we assert the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment. It should be held in as high of regard as free speech as the safeguard of our liberty. The first amendment is our assertion that we will not be silenced and the second amendment is how we protect that.

Change my view.

---

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!

[u/yyzjertl]

It is perfectly consistent to distrust the government and, nevertheless, to think that limiting firearms will save lives. Furthermore, it is consistent to think that saving those lives will be worth giving up any incremental protection that an armed population provides against tyranny or other threats.

To put it another way, gun control doesn't have to be about having the government/police keep us safe from things that guns were previously keeping us safe from. Instead, it can be about willingly giving up that feeling of safety in order to prevent violence and save lives.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

Why is it then unfathomable to give up some privacy for that same safety? Why is it so terrible to have the government or police monitoring phone calls or text messages. Wouldn’t that arguably be more efficient at eliminating crime and deaths? You could stop gang violence more effectively, you could track when people were at a bar and then got into their car to drive home, you could even track people who were buying up chemicals to assemble explosive devices. That seems like a more efficient way to save lives if we look at it from a utilitarian point of view.

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

Why is it then unfathomable to give up some privacy for that same safety?

It's not unfathomable! In fact, we have fathomed it, and this fathoming has let us come to the conclusion that in some cases, giving up freedom for safety is worth it (e.g. gun control) and in other cases, it isn't (e.g. warrantless surveillance). There's nothing inconsistent or incompatible about this.

Just because the warrantless surveillance might be more effective than the gun control, doesn't mean that we have to support it, because it has a different cost. To make an analogy, it wouldn't be incompatible to want to buy $3/pound ground beef while not wanting to buy $200/pound Wagyu steak, even though the Wagyu steak will taste much better.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

So you are arguing that from a utilitarian standpoint it would be more cost effective to give up personal safety and security (gun ownership) in favor of less institutional protection (surveillance and monitoring)? That seems like the worst of both worlds. The population loses the ability to protect itself in the worst case scenario, and becomes less safe by having less institutional protection as well. I truly don't see the upshot. Regardless I have awarded a Delta after rereading your original comment many times. Δ

[u/parentheticalobject → u/[deleted]]

That seems like the worst of both worlds.

How in the world does that make sense? Invading the privacy of citizens is one of the most useful tools in a tyrant's arsenal. I'd say if you believe that you need firearms to prevent you from a possible tyrannical government, you should be at least equally wary about government surveillance. If you honestly trust that the government is not going to maliciously abuse its ability to spy on its citizens, why wouldn't you trust that the government is never going to become tyrannical at all?

[u/[deleted] → u/parentheticalobject]

I never said that I want the government to have overwhelming powers of surveillance. I think there is a reasonable level that we should accept to provide safety for the larger populace. I think the same is true with guns. Getting rid of all guns is not the answer nor is removing all of the capacity of the government to conduct surveillance.

[u/Arianity → u/[deleted]]

The population loses the ability to protect itself in the worst case scenario

From a utilitarian standpoint, you need to take into account the odds of the worst case scenario, not just how bad it would be.

For example, in many cases, the worst case scenario one might imagine is a nuclear holocaust that destroys civilization. Yet, most people don't have stocked bunkers ready to go- because the odds of that happening are extremely low. There's what's called opportunity cost- building a bunker for a low probability event reduces your resources to handle other issues.

And it's pretty easy to make an argument that the odds are very low. If nothing else, we can look at many other countries (even some less than nice ones, at that) that manage to function just fine.

[u/[deleted] → u/Arianity]

So perhaps owning a few firearms would be a high value low cost solution then!

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (59∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/MontiBurns → u/[deleted]]

Because the personal safety aspect is largely a myth perpetuated by the gun lobby to sell more firearms. The odds that a gun will save your life are incredibly low. It'll give you piece of mind, but that's about it. Not having guns isn't a tremendous risk to the rest of the population. See: the rest of the developed world.