Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Blind groper]

Collector.

Your post is dogma, not evidence.

[Collector1337]

Collector.

Your post is dogma, not evidence.

Yeah, if you totally ignore all of history, sure.

[Blind groper]

No.

There are cases, like the early Roman republic, where a relatively free society may descend to tyranny. I am unaware of anything recent (since WWII, which seems to be a major turning point in history) that begins to match what you posted.

What happens instead is that certain cultures seem prone to tyranny, and certain others to freedom. If a culture is prone to tyranny (like Egypt), then kicking out the dictator results in a new dictator. If the culture is freedom oriented, like western democracies, a tyrant is replaced by a democratic government. Like when Hitler was defeated, and the new government became democratic and free.

The degree to which a country is prone to tyranny seems to correlate with the degree of corruption in government. Less corrupt nations, like NZ and Australia, are extremely unlikely to fall to tyranny.

[JimC]

And the real point, even if a drift towards tyranny is a possibility, is whether private ownership of weapons is the cure?

A well educated public, with an active political life, and a vibrant free press are much better deterrents in the long run.

[Seth]

And the real point, even if a drift towards tyranny is a possibility, is whether private ownership of weapons is the cure?

It's a cure. More importantly it's a preventive measure. An armed citizenry is the very best way to prevent a despot from even trying to take power. Despots know that in order to impose and sustain tyranny, they must crush the resistance of the people, and the only way to succeed in doing so is to disarm the people so that they are helpless to resist the tyrant's efforts. The sovereign remedy against such a thing has been proven in the US for 237 years, and there's no reason it won't be the deterrent of choice into the indefinite future.

A well educated public, with an active political life, and a vibrant free press are much better deterrents in the long run.

Indeed that's good, but when it fails the final defender of liberty is force of arms. It always has been, and it always will be, because when a tyrant is determined to take control and is willing to kill to do so, the only thing that can stop it is force, and without arms citizens are slaves to whomever has the guns.

That's exactly what's happening in Syria right now. The current tyrant is despicable and cruel, but once he's deposed the nation will be burdened under the yoke of radical Islam because it's the radical Islamists who have all the guns, and therefore they will rule...unless the secular citizens can put THEIR tyranny down as well. This all stems from the simple fact that the citizenry in Syria was NOT well armed and therefore was a slave to al-Assad until they were armed from the outside, at the expense of 70,000 people's lives. But the average Syrian is still not armed, just the various factions and militias are armed, and once they've stopped fighting the al-Assad regime, they will fight among themselves for supremacy...and the Syrian people will once again be enslaved, just to a new set of despots.

When the citizenry is well armed, it's much harder, and much, much more dangerous for a despot to ply his trade when the citizenry has the power to take him out and overwhelm even a military that sides with him.

The less-invasive treatment of the cancer of tyranny of an informed and active electorate and a vibrant free press is always a first resort, but sometimes you have to be aggressive with such cancers and cut them out and destroy them utterly to save the body politic.

And if the citizenry aren't armed BEFORE it becomes a necessity to resort to force to preserve liberty, it's far too late and many more people will die, as they are doing in Syria, before an effective resistance can be mounted.

Not going to happen that way around here.

[Seth]

Seth

The world is changing at an exponential rate. Modern democracies cannot be compared to Weimar Germany or England under despotic kings.

No it's not. Politics is politics and little has changed in 5000 years. Modern democracies exist only so long as a demagogue doesn't manage to pander to the whims and caprices of the public, who want the same thing they wanted in ancient Rome...bread and circuses...enough to take power.

You have offered exactly zero evidence that is relevant to today's world.

I offer all of human history as conclusive evidence. Human nature has not changed that much, as Stalin, Hitler, Mao...and the present Chinese Communist government, and indeed North Korea and many other regimes existing today amply demonstrate.

That you want to deny the truth of history or current events is not relevant to the truth of my claims.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Arming the citizenry only adds to the burden of excessive homicide rates, and the excessive rate in the USA shows. In particular, permitting the ownership of hand guns, the main murder weapon, is ludicrous. Ludicrous because they have no legitimate use, whether hunting, or opposing tyrannies.

If a government is tyrannical, and the citizens rebel, they will get the weapons they need, as shown by the IRA and the Syrians. They will not bother too much with ineffectual hand guns, but will obtain genuinely effective weapons.

My main thrust, as you know, is against hand guns, since they are the weapons that are used in murders more than all others put together. Hand guns are also the least likely to be of value in opposing a tyrant.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...But the average Syrian is still not armed, just the various factions and militias are armed, and once they've stopped fighting the al-Assad regime, they will fight among themselves for supremacy...and the Syrian people will once again be enslaved, just to a new set of despots....

This is most likely true, unfortunately...

But it's relevance to modern western democracies is tenuous at best.

[Seth]

Seth

Arming the citizenry only adds to the burden of excessive homicide rates, and the excessive rate in the USA shows. In particular, permitting the ownership of hand guns, the main murder weapon, is ludicrous. Ludicrous because they have no legitimate use, whether hunting, or opposing tyrannies.

Ask the Jews whether they would have preferred a slightly higher crime rate or genocide.

If a government is tyrannical, and the citizens rebel, they will get the weapons they need, as shown by the IRA and the Syrians. They will not bother too much with ineffectual hand guns, but will obtain genuinely effective weapons.

Government tyranny is only one reason for people to possess firearms, including handguns.

My main thrust, as you know, is against hand guns, since they are the weapons that are used in murders more than all others put together. Hand guns are also the least likely to be of value in opposing a tyrant.

Um...tell that to Abraham Lincoln.

[JimC]

Seth, are you in favour of psychotic gunmen assassinating US presidents?

[Collector1337]

Seth, are you in favour of psychotic gunmen assassinating US presidents?

[JimC]

Seth, are you in favour of psychotic gunmen assassinating US presidents?

My comment was a legitimate question. In response to a line from BG:

"Hand guns are also the least likely to be of value in opposing a tyrant."

Seth posted this:

"Um...tell that to Abraham Lincoln."

The implication could be that Lincoln was a tyrant, and the Booth (wisely having ownership of a pistol) was then able to remove the dreaded tyrant from the face of the Earth, thus preserving the American way of life...

I wasn't sure whether that was indeed Seth's implication, so I asked the question, couched in general terms...

I am merely a humble seeker after truth...

[Seth]

Seth, are you in favour of psychotic gunmen assassinating US presidents?

No, not at all. If a president needs to be assassinated, I prefer that it be done by stone-cold sober people in full control of their faculties because that maximizes the chances of success. Nutbar psychopaths make too many mistakes and rarely get the job done properly.

[FBM]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/ke ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Lowdown: 5-year-old shoots/kills his baby sister with a .22 he got for his birthday. In this situation, the parents should be punished, not all gun owners, I think.

[Blind groper]

In this situation, the parents should be punished, not all gun owners, I think.

The fact that guns are given to young kids is a symptom of the gun sickness afflicting the USA. A surgeon is needed to excise the infection.