Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history
They aren't afraid of civilian arsenal, but it would make things much more annoying for the state if they go full authoritarian as opposed to democratic gun legislation.
The state isn't likely to work with apple to get briefed on communication locations to snatch 500,000,000 guns for w/e objective - especially when the ratio of right wingers to lefties possessing the guns is about 150-1 as well as the fact that the military and police tend to be right leaning people.
Are civilian guns a any level of deterrent? I'm not sure that's the right question. You can either deter the state or not. I'm not sure if annoyance registers in any meaningful way.
If some militia broke off and tried to form Freedom Land, or whatever the f, the government would definitely work with private companies for signature strikes. They already do partner in such a way, more or less. They've got everything on everyone. Ed Snowden showed us that. Why do you think the eye of Sauron focuses mainly on the domestic population? You think they care if you search for small tits or big tits? No they are set up to attack anyone who gets out of line and if they cared about guns we wouldn't have them.
Are civilian guns a any level of deterrent? I'm not sure that's the right question. You can either deter the state or not. I'm not sure if annoyance registers in any meaningful way.
If some militia broke off and tried to form Freedom Land, or whatever the f, the government would definitely work with private companies for signature strikes. They already do partner in such a way, more or less. They've got everything on everyone. Ed Snowden showed us that. Why do you think the eye of Sauron focuses
Okay but the state would have to determine it to be worth while for whatever reason to seize a half a billion guns from a bunch of rural rednecks who actually fear that exact thing.
The govt working with private companies to carry out strikes on something this large is pure tinfoil hat territory. Just because they've worked with them in the past to gain communication, is a whole other situation than using that information to illegally go against constitutional barriers with an insane level of military strikes.
Also, the people who work at these private companies, and the people who would be trained to actually do the large scale military disarmament would be disarming and killing their friends and neighbors. It isn't practical.
A hypothetical US' tyrant is more likely to arise from a coup than some widespread campaign of terror. Due to massive power of the executive branch in the US, an autocoup is the most likely scenario and most likely during a time of controlling all three branches of government. It would not necessarily be enough that your party controls all three branches.
In the most successful auto-coups, there are more people debating whether there has been a coup than people opposing it. The number of guns in the populace in such a scenario probably isn't all that relevant.
As for remaining in power, this is where some people miss the point. In democracies, remaining in power hinges on active support. You actually need to convince people to not go out there and support you. In authoritarian regimes you just need to convince them to not go out there and oppose you. That can be through a Hungary-style soft takeover of courts, press and institutions, a Russian-style mafia regime that makes it dangerous and illegal to not support you or a hybrid like Turkey. In every one of these three scenarios, the minted ruler can still be quite popular.
A hypothetical US' tyrant is more likely to arise from a coup than some widespread campaign of terror. Due to massive power of the executive branch in the US, an autocoup is the most likely scenario and most likely during a time of controlling all three branches of government. It would not necessarily be enough that your party controls all three branches.
In the most successful auto-coups, there are more people debating whether there has been a coup than people opposing it. The number of guns in
The number of guns won't determine the odds of success of that kind of coup but it will determine what the dictator can do in the (sometimes long) phase when he just executed the "soft coup" , increased his powers, started to remove constitutional rights and so on.
It is far harder to enact full scale totalitarianism (the actual disaster you want to avoid) if every household could be armed.
