| ▲ | angelgonzales 5 days ago |
| Some years back, I had a discussion with an older woman who struck a conversation with me innocently enough about weather or something. She turned the topic to politics and volunteered an opinion, her tone and expression indicated to me that she expected me to agree with her statement. I told her that I respectfully disagreed with her and I also told her why. Her expression soured and she told me that because she was a schoolteacher she thought guns should be banned because too many children had been killed by people using guns on them. I agreed with her that it was tragic and that I hoped we could live in a world where kids wouldn’t die from people using guns on them. In my life I want to be rational and honest and I want to listen to people. I listen to people and I hope they listen to me because that’s how ideas are exchanged. I asked her how I myself could avoid becoming the victim of a genocide without guns. I wonder this myself. I’ve read about genocides, the millions of people dead in China, Russia, Germany, Poland, Africa and Gaza too, I’ve also seen rioting and violence firsthand in Los Angeles and Portland and I wonder how I can ensure that my girlfriend and I will be safe now and into the future. I have no solution except for responsible gun ownership. A few years ago our car was stolen in Portland, the police did not help and the 911 phone service was down at the time. The only way I could get the car was to physically go and pick the car up, a car surrounded by criminals, of course I needed a gun to make sure I was safe. I think about natural disasters or occasions where government is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens - how will good people defend themselves against evil people? I’ve seen violence firsthand so many times that I have a visceral reaction to the thought that someone would take my guns away - I simply wouldn’t let it happen because I know if I did then I wouldn’t be able to prevent myself from being killed and dumped in an unmarked mass grave by a 19 year old kid who thinks he’s doing the right thing because of a mandate from a politician, and I wouldn’t be able to stop evil people. She disagreed, I disagreed with her, she made points I feel were unfair oversimplifications “guns have more rights than women,” but we had a respectful discussion but she didn’t want to talk with me anymore after that. I would’ve talked with her after because I value what people have to say and I want to have discussions. I think we can have discussions but we should never take away the rights of citizens. |
|
| ▲ | KayEss 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| This comes across a lot like you're saying that your personal feeling of safety for you and your family is worth more than the actual safety of innocent schoolchildren who are being mass murdered. |
| |
| ▲ | angelgonzales 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I am personally concerned that I may be the victim of genocide, and far more people have died from genocide perpetrated by governments than by school shootings. I’m not trying to be dense, I’m simply saying that history of demonstrated this. I’m also concerned that I will be the victim of violent crime and I’ve also had to defend myself from violent criminals in the past. Have you had any of these experiences? I’m curious to hear your thoughts if you’ve ever feared for your life in this way? Call me selfish, but I personally don’t want to be hurt. Thank you for your response. | | |
| ▲ | jiggawatts 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You've talked about your feelings a lot, which is the point. Guns make people feel safe. They don't actually make you safer. You're more likely to be killed by your own gun than someone else's. Realistically, you have no hope of protecting yourself with a gun if you're surrounded by gangbangers with a bunch of guns all pointed at you. Etc, etc... The gun debate isn't a debate about facts, it never was. It's a debate about feelings, and scared people won't change their minds unless they stop being scared. Nobody in America right now is trying to make people feel safe, not in an era where the President of the United States feels it is appropriate to personally attack... anyone for any perceived slight, in public, with verbal violence and in the case of anyone looking even vaguely hispanic, physical violence. | | |
| ▲ | angelgonzales 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I get where you’re coming from, but I lived in Portland for years where the police were essentially suppressed by the district attorney Eric Schmidt (and other factors that were occurring during this time in Portland and in America). This led to violent criminals essentially controlling the city at night and which lead to unfortunate outcomes for my family. Simultaneously this came at a time where the previous president was threatening my job and livelihood with mandates and I was receiving emails from our national HR that we may lose our jobs if we did not comply. These two events did not make me feel safe for years, I do feel safer with the current president. | | |
| |
| ▲ | KayEss 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have had a gun pointed at me, and I've been where guns have been fired in anger around me. I'm kind of surprised to hear somebody in America think it's a likely enough thing to happen to be worth the obvious societal cost of the wide spread weapons. Realistically, if they did come for you, how much use would your weapon be? Do you believe that it would mean the difference between your life and death, or just that you'd feel better going having been able to put up some defence? Several genocides have happened in neighbouring countries from where I live in living memory, and it isn't at all clear that having access to a weapon allowed anybody who was targeted to survive. The cost in mass shootings (now nearly two per day in the US) is a real cost borne by society at large. Your cost is still only hypothetical, and of unclear value if the worst did happen. | | |
| ▲ | angelgonzales 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It seems you have been around violence but have concluded differently than I have. I think that all rights are hypothetical until they are used. People in America have the right to free speech and assembly but depending on your perspective these rights are hypothetical for most people because they don’t use their speech or right to assembly very often or to the fullest extent. In some states, women have the right to have an abortion but many don’t use that right so hypothetically for them it doesn’t have any value. I think with the right to keep and bear arms it’s the same, for a good person defending themselves with a gun this hypothetical right becomes applied and has an immeasurable value to them. I don’t think we should discard any of our rights even if they are rarely used. I don’t think the risk of a genocide or civil war is infinitesimal, I think these sort of events happen often and are guaranteed over a long enough timeline. I think that people who are well armed would be better off in these situations and may even be the people who put something like a genocide to a stop. | | |
| ▲ | KayEss 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You're misinterpreting what I said. I said that your ability to defend yourself and your family with a gun was hypothetical. I can see that you like to think of yourself as a rational thinker about this, but you're refusing to answer the actual criticism: actual people are being killed every day due to the availability of weapons in your society. There are nearly two mass shootings per day. So far this year that has led to 250 deaths and more than a thousand injuries[1]. These are not hypothetical abstractions, which is all you seem interested in engaging with. These are real people, many of them children, who find themselves victims of gun violence. You are arguing that your feeling of safety is more important than their actual safety. All of your arguments amount to a continuation of your position that you put your own feelings ahead of the actual deaths of people in society around you. This is a very selfish way to engage in your society. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts | | |
| ▲ | angelgonzales 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I understand your position, it is terrible that adults and children die by the hands of others. Genocides have happened all over the world and have led to tens of millions of people dying. These events aren’t hypothetical they’re historical but happen in big chunks rather than uniformly distributed and frequent but comparatively small events. I would suggest the statistics indicate that a person is likelier to die from a genocide than from a mass shooting by a factor of >100 and that small arms ownership and competence is more helpful rather than harmful since these tools can enable individuals to defend themselves against state actors or violent groups, or by their existence prevent groups with malicious intent from acting out on their genocidal or authoritarian desires. Something I agree with is the FBI’s assessment that people don’t commit crimes if they thinks it’s likely that they’ll be caught. I think that the collective individuals in our government (these United States of America) wouldn’t want to mandate concentration camps or a genocide because of the concentration of citizens with diverse mindsets who would provide feedback through resistance. There are of course other factors like recency bias that come into play. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | whatarethembits 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Rhetorical: What does it say about America that a large portion of its citizens (assuming OPs feelings are not unique) fear being a victim of genocide? Can't say I've met anyone from any other "developed" nation who share the same dread by simply existing as part of their country. In other words, the sum total of America's values have resulted in a citizenry that lives with existential dread. Maybe those values need a second look? | | |
| ▲ | angelgonzales 4 days ago | parent [-] | | My thoughts on this is that genocide has been common outside of America in the last ~100 years and that Americans need to act differently than the rest of the world in an effort to keep it from happening here. |
| |
| ▲ | Denote6737 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | IF you are going to be the victim of genocide they will take away your ability to defend yourself first. | | |
| ▲ | KayEss 5 days ago | parent [-] | | This of course plays into the fear US gun advocates have of any attempt to remove their gun rights. If it were to happen though, then maybe as a prepper type with a house and lands in the woods you'd stand a chance against an armed mob that came for you, but certainly not the government. If you're defending your sub-urban house (or even worse flat), I suspect that the gun you have for self defense would make very little difference to the final outcome, but might make you feel a bit better about it. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vel0city 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Did the gun actually make you safer when retrieving your car or did it just make you feel safer? Did having the gun actually solve any problem, or just increase the chances of someone dying over a parked car? Aren't there other potential ways to fix society from your example of your stolen car other than "we should just arm everyone"? Shouldn't the answer be we should have police actually help these situations and we should do more to reduce the rates of people living lives where they're more likely to steal a car in the first place? |
| |
| ▲ | angelgonzales 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In my case, the criminals physically left because I had a firearm. That week the police response time was anywhere from three hours to three days. This was in Portland, Oregon and our car had been stolen three times before, my girlfriend‘s bike was also stolen and my car was broken into three times, my other car was totaled by a drunk driver without any repercussions. We left Portland shortly after meeting a British person who had been kidnapped and forced to withdraw money from ATMs. I would love to live in a world where everybody has what they want but we don’t live in that world. That being said there is no excuse for somebody taking something that does not belong to them. I was deeply hurt by these experiences and forever changed in the way that I think and act. I learned that sometimes when I told people about the things that had happened to us, I felt that that person had sympathy for the criminals and no sympathy for me. I learned that it is a fact that police cannot be everywhere, they cannot react instantly, and even if they can react sometimes they won’t for political reasons. I still think of the time where I was sucker punched by some man on the street for no reason which is what initially lead me to purchase a firearm for self-defense. I can’t fix society, but I can protect myself and my loved ones. | |
| ▲ | coderenegade 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There aren't any other solutions that empower the individual. The problem is when the police are underfunded and don't show up, or the judiciary continually lets dangerous individuals out on bail. We should be able to rely on the system, but it's not hard to see why people want firearms when the system fails. |
|
|
| ▲ | rTX5CMRXIfFG 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > how will good people defend themselves against evil people The problem is in people assuming that they are “good”. That’s hubris. The reality is that everyone is equally capable of evil—we’re just looking at taking guns out of the equation so that gun violence becomes highly unlikely. |
|
| ▲ | Jataman606 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >I’ve read about genocides, the millions of people dead in China, Russia, Germany, Poland, Africa and Gaza too, I’ve also seen rioting and violence firsthand in Los Angeles and Portland and I wonder how I can ensure that my girlfriend and I will be safe now and into the future. I have no solution except for responsible gun ownership. No gun will save you during genocide if you are a target. Best case scenario you kill few attackers and die anyway. |
| |
| ▲ | kbelder 4 days ago | parent [-] | | An armed person won't stop a genocide, but an armed populace might. | | |
| ▲ | solid_fuel 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Genocides are not committed solely by governments. An armed and divided populace is just as likely to commit a genocide as they are to stop one. Look at the Rwandan genocide. Look at the mass shootings we have here by white supremacists. All it takes is an armed populace that stands by while “those people” (their neighbors) are killed by extremists (their other neighbors). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | slidehero 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | adrian_b 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A general strike did not work in the past against most communist governments and it is much less likely to ever work in the future, anywhere. In all the countries of the Eastern Europe where the communist governments were removed, this was possible only due to traitors inside the communist top layer, who had reached the conclusion that their chiefs are too incompetent, so it will be more profitable for themselves to remove all the figures well known to the public and to convert themselves into capitalist businessmen, ensuring the surviving of their power in another form. For a general strike to exist, it must be coordinated. There must exist someone who must say "Let's do this" and everybody else must start the strike. This is impossible under a competent tyrannical government. A half of century ago it was impossible because every company, institution or school was infiltrated with informants, who would report immediately any kind of criticism against the government, then the reported person would disappear, e.g. by being interned in a mental health institution. If somehow a strike succeeded to start in a single place, that place would be instantly isolated, with no communications, then nobody outside would learn what has happened, except perhaps many years later, and the strikers would disappear. Nowadays, this has become much simpler, because the government no longer needs a huge number of loyal human snitches (which had to be redundant, as none of them could be trusted), it can use electronic surveillance monitored by AI. | |
| ▲ | Shocka1 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As someone who has worked all over the world with several different cultures and types of people, including in war zones, saying “the rest of the world shakes their head” is an extremely broad generalization. Different countries have very different experiences with guns, governments, and resistance. I'm sure you have your own perspective that is valuable, but speaking for “the rest of the world” comes across as dismissive and small minded, rather than engaging with the point that was made. | |
| ▲ | Bridged7756 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, we don't. Don't speak for the rest of the world, for not everyone lives in your country, let alone in your bubble. I think your "offense" Is downright naive, if not moronic. You should know how difficult politics are, and what you are asking for, the civilians, the military, just sitting down to "protest" is not only an imaginative fantasy, but I would also wager downright impossible. | |
| ▲ | angelgonzales 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t think everyone in the entire world disagrees and I think many people in the world do agree with my point of view . I also think it would be more constructive for people who disagree to disagree respectfully rather than shake their head in disapproval - with the understanding that two rational actors can arrive at different and reasonable conclusions because they value parameters differently. I work with statistics and probability every day. It’s my understanding that certain assumptions and modeling were made in the statistics so that the probabilities may not apply to me in general. I also think that governments may not act generally tyrannically, but specifically tyrannically and target certain groups, and may even have the popular support of most people in the country like what’s happening with the Uyghurs in China right now. In this case a general strike wouldn’t be useful at all because the majority of people in the country would be happy and productive. | |
| ▲ | throwaway3060 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I hate to say this - but having known refugees from a tyrannical government, I have to shake my head at this. If a population tried a general strike against a truly tyrannical government, pretty soon that government will start bringing out gunmen. Like in Ukraine in 2014. Sometimes it will work out, but not without sacrifice. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Like Ukraine in 2014 You mean the Revolution of Dignity, where mostly unarmed (at least by firearm) protesters stood up against government snipers and successfully removed the pro-Russian government? If anything, it shows one can overthrow their government despite not having much firepower while the government has guns. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway3060 5 days ago | parent [-] | | With more than a hundred people killed by those government snipers. The protestors succeeded, but some paid the ultimate price to do it. If they had a means to defend themselves, maybe there could have been less lives lost. This was Ukraine, where elections still existed and there was still some air of democracy and institutions. In a place where a tyrant has an established, unshakeable monopoly on violence, what do you think could prevent the tyrant from using that? | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You think there would have been less death if both sides were actively shooting at each other? Are you really following your own logic here? How did the Confederate uprising go with their arms against the federal government in the US? More or less than a hundred or so deaths? And this was also a country that still had elections. Do you actually have examples of civil wars in large modern-ish countries where both sides were well armed that resulted in less than 200 deaths? | | |
| ▲ | throwaway3060 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't view civil wars the same way - these aren't individual protestors, but separatist military forces. They are violent by definition. I did say maybe. Yanukovych ultimately fled - presumably he felt his position was threatened. We cannot know how many more he might have been willing to kill if he did not feel as threatened. This is not advocating for a solution, only to point out that a committed tyrant can be next to impossible to dislodge. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 5 days ago | parent [-] | | What would have stopped the Maidan protesters from being labeled as separatist military forces if they were well-armed? You're drawing distinctions where there are none. Where do you think the Confederate forces got their firearms from? They just suddenly popped into existence the moment they became "separatist military forces"? They were the people with rights to bear arms bringing up arms against their tyrannical government. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway3060 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The Confederacy was made of states. Even before the Civil War, each of these had militias. I'm sure Yanukovych would have labelled them a separatist military - but would the remaining institutions agree? We don't have to assume that the protestors bring weapons from the beginning - it could come only in response to Yanukovych committing to violence. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | slidehero 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >If they had a means to defend themselves, maybe there could have been less lives lost. dude c'mon, be serious. the response to "my house is on fire" is not "gee I wonder what would happen if I added more fuel..." The response is to starve the fire of oxygen. Labour is a government's oxygen. |
|
| |
| ▲ | slidehero 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >but having known refugees from a tyrannical government my family escaped Poland as political refugees before the end of communism. Poland famously had bloodless revolution in 1989 exactly this way. Down tools. stop work and the economy essentially seized up (practically over night). >Sometimes it will work out, but not without sacrifice. Sacrifice is always necessary. If the factories stop, there is no way to move forward, regardless of how tyrannical the government. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway3060 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you believe the results would have been the same under a Stalin instead of a Gorbachev? This isn't to take away from what Poland accomplished then, or to say that such methods can never work in the right conditions. Violent revolutions against established tyrants do not have a great history. But I have a hard time understanding the belief that these methods can work in the worst of conditions. | | |
| ▲ | slidehero 5 days ago | parent [-] | | >Do you believe the results would have been the same under a Stalin instead of a Gorbachev? A little different if you're talking foreign invasion obviously. In Poland's case it was Poles vs Poles and regardless of the level of tyranny, soldiers have trouble shooting their countrymen if they're sitting in a factory. If the other guy is actively shooting at you though?... The logic is simple to follow. |
| |
| ▲ | adrian_b 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am pretty sure that a general strike could not have been initiated in Poland without the support of traitors from inside the top layers of the communist party and of the security forces. In any of the communist countries of Eastern Europe everybody hated the government and they wanted to start a general strike. However, immediately after somebody would say this in loud voice, they would disappear. There have been a few cases when strikes have succeeded to start in a place, but then the government succeeded to prevent everybody else to know anything about this for many years, usually until the fall of the communist governments around 1989, and the strikers would disappear in such cases. The weakness of the communist governments around 1989, after decades of easily suppressing any similar opposition, can be explained only by an internal fight within the communist leadership. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|