Assualt Rifle Ban Expires

[Edric O]

The question, about wheter people would rise up against their own government, sounds a little bit far fetched. I mean, imagine how much they would loose by rebelling against the government. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's unlikely. Like a nuclear war. The possibility is there, but it is unlikely that it will happen.

What are you talking about? Revolutions have been a very common occurence - especially over the past 200 years. It is very rare that a decade passes without a successful revolution somewhere.

Certainly far-fetched in the US, simply because of the scale of the country (Russia 1917 was possible only because of the concentration of power in the two main cities).

In general, once the revolution succeeds in the capital of a country, it's all over for the old regime. An American revolution would be possible, as long as it is focused on Washington DC. Of course, it's likely that the states opposed to the revolution would soon secede from the union, but that's another matter.

Smaller countries, though, have managed popular uprisings and similar over the past century. Their survivability is another question, of course, having a lot to do with outside relationships.

You seem to be forgetting China. A very big country, which had a successful revolution less than 50 years ago.

But more specifically, when would you be more frightened? If you were expecting a situation where you might be burgled - with the consequent loss of posessions, perhaps at knifepoint? Or if you were expecting to be burgled - with the consequent 'showdown' whereby both you and the criminal has a good chance of being killed? And, since a process of evolution will take place more quickly among criminals where the bad shots and bad tacticians will be killed off and the good ones will thrive, chances are the criminal knows how to handle the gun better than you do, and you won't survive.

I'm assuming you have a gun with the intention of using it.

If you have a gun, you have the choice between the "showdown" and cooperating with the burglars. You don't have to use the gun. You can act as if you didn't own a gun at all. On the other hand, if you don't have a gun, you cannot act as if you had one.

So, in other words, having a gun increases the number of choices you have in that situation, and is therefore better than not having a gun.

Edric, there MUST be a way for the people to enforce their views other than revolution.

There are plenty of ways. Running in elections, going on strike, holding peaceful protests, etc. Revolution is only a LAST RESORT, which must be used when all else fails.

I'm simply saying that we should be prepared for the worst case scenario, that's all.

[nemafakei]

"You seem to be forgetting China. A very big country, which had a successful revolution less than 50 years ago."

"Russia 1917 was possible only because of the concentration of power in the two main cities"

Same basic phenomenon. Centres were not distributed throughout, as is the case with the US and European countries.

[Anathema]

A revolution would be one thing, but suppose for a second that a civil war would break out again? In a country with so many weapons it's sure to be very long and bloody.

[SurlyPIG]

the right to bear arms will always help further the political goals of the majority of the population, whatever those goals may be. Thus, it is an inherently democratic right. It gives power to the people - literraly.

No, it gives power to those who are are the best armed.  Whether the situation is burlgars in a bank or revolutionaries in the capital the attacker is always better armed because he, as the aggressor, knows what to expect.  Thus the right to bear arms favours the violent agressors more than it favours retaliatory defenders.  Arms may make the public a scad more powerful compared to the government, but it makes radical political factions vying for power eminently more powerful than before.

It could theoretically contribute to anything, as long as the people want it. If the people want a dictatorship, then the only way to stop them from instituting that dictatorship is by taking power out of their hands - in other words, by instituting your own dictatorship. Quite hypocritical, don't you think?

What does this have to do with dictatorships?  Banning killing machines certainly doesn't make a nation a dictatorship.

Here's what I see happening if a government does become corrupt and the people revolt:

1) Several armed factions compete for power

2) Joe Public has no way to know which factions are trustworthy and has to base any support he gives on what the factions are saying (which may not be what they do at all)

3) The faction that is able to gain control of the capital wins the initial race

4) This faction may gain the support of the military

5) Civil war erupts

You see, "the people" are not an all-seeing, all-knowing entity that acts in synchronous movements.  In the event of government corruption, the people will not act as a single body expelling the government; rogue groups will inevitably push for power for themselves, likely taking a good chunk of the public along for the ride, at first.

No, of course not - and I never claimed such a thing. Legal gun ownership will certainly not lead to more safety against criminals. But it will lead to more safety against tyrants.

And which is a bigger threat to modern democracies?  Risk management, Edric.  Considering the benefits of arms, which, BTW, mean absolutely nothing without the support of the military (which can be achieved w/o arms) the cost compared to the potential reward is a desert to a grain of sand.

The logic is simple: We have two choices regarding the issue of how this decision should be made. Either (a) let the "changing, swaying 50%+1" decide, or (b) let a minority decide, or maybe even give the power of decision to a single person. The majority might not always make the right decision, but at least it's better than leaving the decision up to a minority or a single person.

I suggested no such thing.  I was thinking more along the lines of constitutional legislation ratified by the public.

My line of reasoning goes like this: In drawing the line, we must reach a balance between two opposing concerns: (1) The people must have the right to hold sufficient firepower to be able to fight against oppression. (2) There is always the danger that some deranged individual could go on a rampage; therefore, the kind of firepower available to the people must be limited so as to make sure that any such rampage does not cause too many casualties. Giving the people no weapons at all would be an exaggeration of concern #2, while completely ignoring concern #1. Giving the people rocket launchers, on the other hand, would be an exaggeration of concern #1, while completely ignoring concern #2.

In that case, #1 would only work in Iceland and other countries that don't have a military.  If you have an M-16 and the government has tanks, you're fucked.  I think you sais something about that to Nema...

On the other hand, being ordered to slaughter civilians - even armed ones - will completely demoralize the army. Soldiers don't like shooting their own people.

Edric, civillians don't need guns to demoralize the army by throwing their lives at it.  Think about it: if you're a soldier deciding which way to go, are you more likely to side with the rebel that's shooting at you with an AK-47 or the peaceful protester you've been order to kill?  If anything, an armed populus would be less likely to get the military on their side.

Also, assuming that the army IS inactive or fractured or elsewhere, the people still need to be armed in order to have a successful revolution.

1. Tell that to Gandhi.

2. Why?  We've already established that if you don't have at least partial support of the military, you're screwed.  And since you don't need arms to gain the support of the military, why would you need arms?

If you have a gun, you have the choice between the "showdown" and cooperating with the burglars. You don't have to use the gun. You can act as if you didn't own a gun at all. On the other hand, if you don't have a gun, you cannot act as if you had one.

So, in other words, having a gun increases the number of choices you have in that situation, and is therefore better than not having a gun.

That's the most manufactured example I've ever heard.  First of all not having a gun means reduce the other guy's silenced D5K to a hunting rifle that will wake half the neighbourhood if he fires, therefore deterring him from doing so.  Add the fact that you stand a greater probability of living if you run and winning if you fight.  Add to that the fact that there's a reduced chance of being attacked because fewer people will try to hold you at gunpoint with a bulky, clumsy, unconcealable hunting rifle than they will an assault rifle or handgun.  With no assault weapons/handguns, the probability of occurrance is reduced, the probability of shootout is reduced (reluctance to fire b/c of sound), probability of getting hit is decreased (single-shot as opposed to rapid-fire), probability of living if hit is increased (one wound as opposed to many, smaller bullet as opposed to larger bullet).  It's obvious which is better.  You can't just look at a situation where they have a gun for sure.  You have to look at the big picture.

There are plenty of ways. Running in elections, going on strike, holding peaceful protests, etc. Revolution is only a LAST RESORT, which must be used when all else fails.

I'm simply saying that we should be prepared for the worst case scenario, that's all.

Those words mean vastly different things to different people.  If you need an example, Bush said that the war in Iraq was a last resort.

The last resort of greedy political thugs comes much sooner than the last resort of the public.

[Dude_Doc]

What are you talking about? Revolutions have been a very common occurence - especially over the past 200 years. It is very rare that a decade passes without a successful revolution somewhere.

I was talking about the United States.