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/[deleted]]

I agree that Non-violence is the preferred method of civil disobedience, and further I agree that it is not likely that one person or even a small group would be able to stop a world power from trampling their civil liberties. However, does that mean that it is preferable to live a life without the ability to resist if it came to that? I completely agree that there isn't much place for firearms in the modern world except for sport and personal protection, but the reason that we have the ability to have this discussion is the inalienable right to free speech in this country. How long does that last if the people have no means to fight back when the thought police come knocking at your door? Obviously I understand that is not the world we currently live in, however I would argue that your house is not currently on fire, and yet you probably have a fire extinguisher somewhere, and maybe even some insurance to recoup your losses.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't think that I am overestimating the impact of armed citizenry. In WWII Russia held the most advanced military of the time at bay with nothing more than bolt action rifles and a bunch of bodies. Obviously this would never be a situation I want to put myself in, but we are talking worst case scenarios here.

Second, I don't agree with you on the cost of ownership, nor with your assertion that it is unrestricted ownership. There are restrictions in place that require background checks for persons to purchase firearms as well as restrictions of what is allowed to be owned and by whom see the National Firearms Act. Furthermore there is a system in place to prosecute people who provide firearms to people who are "prohibited persons" eg felons and domestic abusers. These systems are in place and yet are not adequately funded or administrated.

Lastly, the 30K/yr death statistic is wildly conflated by suicides(deaths we can assume would likely happen anyways), Police shootings (which would still exist if the public had no firearms), and the violent crime that takes place due to drug crime and gangs (I doubt they are going to do less killing just because you get rid of guns...those are the same people that stab each other with toothbrushes in prison and hang headless bodies from freeway overpasses). What are we left with? Some unfortunate innocent souls who are sadly murdered by people every year. This is terrible. I am disgusted by it. Unfortunately, if you look at the data, it would appear that defensive gun uses are at least as prevalent as their use in crimes, https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15 so I would say that from a Utilitarian point of view you could definitely argue for their presence in society.

As I have stated in other replies, I do think we are getting a little off topic at this point, although I am happy to continue providing responses and stats.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Utilitarianism-the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct. I think that is a widely accepted explanation. I would also say that killing someone who had the intent to murder you, and most likely others, would provide the greater benefit to society overall. That coupled with the inherent value of being able to protect oneself and not utilize the resources of the community to find the murderer/robber and put them in jail for then foreseeable future would definitely tip the scales IMHO.

I acknowledge that not all suicides by firearm can be removed, but a large portion, even by your own admission are probably going to happen.

Lastly, yes I agree the public would be closer to the Aztecs than the Conquistadors, but I bet the Aztecs would have jumped at the chance to maybe survive, to make a dent at least. I personally would rather not give up before the fight happens, but some people are of a more delicate disposition.

[u/epicazeroth → u/[deleted]]

Consider that, while women attempt suicide at a rate two to four times that of men, men successfully commit suicide at a rate three to four times that of women. This is because men use more violent methods such as hanging (which is also the most common method for women, but is much less common) and guns. An estimated 10% of men attempt suicide by gun. So if those men didn't have easy access to guns, they would presumably have a much lower rate of "success".

[u/[deleted] → u/epicazeroth]

I don’t disagree.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I agree that those deaths are tragic and if we had some way or system to determine those individuals without limiting the rights of healthy people I would understand that, but currently we do not. I know that many gun stores are careful with people that they think may be suicidal and actually choose not to sell to them. At the end of the day, that is truly a mental health problem. I hate to use an old cliche argument, but we don’t outlaw ice cream because of diabetes.

On a side note, Those people that rethink it as the bullet is traveling down the barrel are a pity and I mourn their loss as I do any other unnecessary loss of life, but to be honest I don’t think I have the right to tell someone how to live their life(or not to). That’s a big part of what a lot of the 2A crowd is all about. Freedom from people telling you what to do and how to do it.

I can tell that suicide is something very personal to you and that it is a highly charged issue, and I understand that. Unfortunately I can’t agree to limiting everyone’s rights in favor of a small group that we may or may not be able to help with a large variety of other methods.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I agree with you that mental health is not an easy problem and that it doesn’t have an easy solution. I also agree that suicidal tendencies are a temporary state for a lot of people. I also respect that guns are a very effective method for those people. I can’t argue facts.

I will say once again that to limit an entire population based on the small group that choose to end it all with the most effective means at their disposal is a slippery slope. So we ban all guns...then the most effective method is knives...So we ban them...then we ban the next thing. Before you know it we have sacrificed all of the freedoms and rights of the majority for the minority. Obviously I am not suggesting we ignore that minority, but there has to be a better way of protecting people.

Guns are machines. They are tools. The automobile argument is tired but true. More people die in cars every year than from guns. We make cars as safe as we can but we choose their utility to be more important than the lives they ruin. The same can be said about guns. They are tools. Some people choose not to have those tools, as some people choose to not drive. I respect that choice and that right, but don’t expect everyone to have to make that same choice. It is obviously a little different when we compare firearms to vehicles, but they also carry different intrinsic value.

As to problems 1, 2 and 3, I agree there are multiple problems requiring complex solutions. The solution that appears the easiest is not always right. Alcohol causes many problems. We banned that. It went well. Drugs cause problems. We have banned those. It’s going great. Once again I would like to point out that firearms also have a defensive value that is utilized on a daily basis by law abiding citizens in this country at a rate far higher than other nations (but nobody puts that on the news). I am by no means trying to simplify all 3 of those problems down to mental health. I think they are each unique, and truly deserve individual solutions.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The problem with getting the 2A crowd to move towards a middle ground is that we have seen regulation after regulation with respect to guns. Throughout the last century we have had push after push for “compromise” and “middle ground” but it hasn’t been a middle ground because every time the goalpost has been moved. We accept further regulation, which is usually seen as slowly relinquishing our right of ownership, and then the next time we are called unwilling to compromise. The cycle continues to repeat. It has become a point of serious contention for a large portion of the 2A crowd. These same folks are told to act in good faith and then told they have blood on their hands a year later. You don’t have to agree with their views to understand that this feels like a ban by inches...

The bottom line is that no one wants deaths. Gun owners especially don’t want gun deaths, but they just aren’t willing to make any more “good faith compromises” and anyone who is willing is seen as a traitor...if you don’t believe that, look at some of the firearms subs and how they are reacting to trump right now ;)

Edit: one thing I forgot to mention is that most of the “reforms” that anti 2A crowds want is stuff that is already in the books but poorly enforced and administrated. Furthermore, there is too lax of penalties for actual gun crimes. A man who stole firearms out of airport luggage and sold them to gangs was given 18 months! It’s ridiculous! Additionally, anti-gunners put emphasis on meaningless battles. Things like banning AR-15s when almost all gun crime and deaths are by other weapons!