The average person is completely incapable of shouldering the burden the advocates of democracy place on him.
Discussion
That's exactly why we do it together. Help each other. The one thing we can all absolutely guarantee is that we are wrong about something. Of course we don't think so. It's why we believe what we believe.
That's why society is so valuable. Power of juggernaught numbers, coupled with consensus judgement to reduce mistakes.
Don't give up on it, try to do it better.
Except that's not what happens in practice. In practice the average person is too busy trying to scrounge together 2k each month for rent to even think about politics. They are too distracted by social media and entertainment to put the time in required to learn about the world. They don't have the intelligence or drive to self educate so they just believe the lies they were taught in school and from movies and the news.
Democracy and the vast majority of humanity are two fundamentally contradictory things. They cannot be reconciled.
It can work if a population is homogenous enough, but that’s rare now given the immigrant situation.
Even then it doesn't because as I said the average person is incapable of juggling the concerns of real life with properly informing themselves about political issues.
Moreover unless you are 100% homogeneous culturally, religiously and ideologically on top of racially, you're still going to be vulnerable to a group of bad actors taking control of various forms of media, which then allows them to control the vote by controlling the information the majority of the population consumes.
This is where tolerance, and a desire to actually form social groups for everyones benefit, comes in.
Those who other groups like immigrants (we basically all are immigrants), are intentionally destroying our society so that we are too divided to stop them taking advantage of us.
A gun won't fix that. We are going to have to help each other to be smarter, and respond collectively.
Perhaps you should have a little bit more tolerance for gun owners rights.
Studies show Whites are the least ethnocentric group so it is the immigrants othering us. Multiculturalism reduces collectivism which is why large employers like diverse workforces.
Who is "them" that we are supposed to be uniting to fight against in your opinion?
Those who are anti-social. Those undermining the collective ability of a society to it's own self determination, and setting it's values, freedoms, and providing of services and infrastructure to make it stronger and provide greater opportunity to it's members.
Impressively vague. I note that you refer to a societies self determination rather than a peoples (which is the actual agreed definition).
Not having a gun won't fix that.
Having a gun wont fix that, but you might be a bit less worried about your kids at school.
I'm not worried about kids in schools as much as about the 1,000 people being killed the the us police force EACH YEAR.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
Well I strongly suggest that we try harder to make it work. Because you are not going to be able to kill everyone that comes to take your stuff.
If that doesn't work, try harder still.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not an individualist or a libertarian, quite the opposite. I just also reject democratic consensus as the foundation of a government.
What's your superior plan?
Fascism.
There's plenty of that. I would argue it's the root of the problem, not the solution.
I always think that people should be on the receiving end of what they propose, to understand the value of tolerance and support from others.
It seems harsh to wish fascism on you, but I won't lose any sleep over it, given that you started it.
Define Fascism.
"Because you are not going to be able to kill everyone that comes to take your stuff." - the possibility of me having a gun makes many NOT to come in the first place.
Go and tell the US (or any other) government to give up on nukes because you are not going to be able to kill everyone that comes to take your stuff.
Can you see how wrong you're?
Nobody is saying no guns. I am saying reasonable gun controls so that nutters can't kill a lot of people easily.
The reasonable gun control doesn't exist, the "nutters" will be able to get a gun.
#Japan has incredibly strict gun control, yet Abe was assassinated just a year ago. Because the "nutters" will always find a way.
I assume that you are not giving every word the importance that it deserves, because you are too busy frothing at the mouth to discuss it rationally, or don't really care.
It's harder to get guns in Japan. In Japan fewer children are killed with guns in school per capita.
That's the crucial impact of 'easier'.
Absolutism and false equivalence shows an unwillingness to engage honestly and find common ground. Which at least goes some way to explaining why you don't want to contribute to making a fair and free society.
If you can't scrutinise and hold your reoresentatives to the values mandated democratically by your society, there is no chance that you are going to constrain armed individuals to reasonable social behavior.
It would seem to me that you should work on that, not the rights of the criminal or unstable to easy access to guns in order to exercise their whim to kill people.
I suppose that we are all different though.
Japan has had multiple frenzied knife attacks in schools killing children.
Estimated guns per capita - Switzerland 27.6, Eswatini 4.8
Firearm homicide deaths per 100k - Switzerland 2.64, Eswatini 37.16
Could there possibly be other differences between countries that influence gun crime figures than simply number of guns?
If you want to prevent criminals and the mentally unstable from having access to guns keep them in prison and asylums.
It's EASIER to fix the government while the citizens have access to guns.
That's the crucial impact of 'easier'.
It would seem to me that you should work on that, not the rights of criminal or unstable, working for the government, to easy access to guns in order to exercise their whim to kill unarmed people.
I suppose that we all are different though.
Here's another fact for you - In Japan fewer children are killed with guns in school, more children are stabbed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/world/asia/japan-stabbing-schoolchildren.html
You can kill a lot of ppl easily with a pistol. Should pistols be banned?