Who are you going to resist with your gun? I'm not convinced that you can get the people that you need to in your sights.
It's also about socialization and democracy, winning the argument for a majority of people to create a fair and just world. Which isn't helped by individuals thinking that they are the big dog, and their view should take precedence. Particularly if they end up going tonto and taking out the wrong targets.
Never give up your guns
No of course not, but I'm sure that you would support reasonable control measures so that other members of society could live their lives free from the tyranny of fear, from the threat of out of control gun abuse?
Out Of control gun abuse is the State
Not the people.
Wars are a fiat disease.
Separate money and State then talk about gun control for citizens. Power corrupts, sort that first
Someone being able to legally aquire an automatic weapon, and slaughter children attending school, doesn't seem to massively influence this.
There’s alot of very bad situations, giving up arms is not the answer right now. The USA has alot to sort out before that would ever happen. Every sane
Person wants peace, but not at the cost of tyranny 🤷♂️
Thats what I'm saying.
Do you not think there is degree of tyranny in giving unsuitable people access to guns, leaving the general population unable to defend their children from potential everyday slaughter?
Yep, and the State promotes it. Wrong but that is what is happening. I wouldn’t advise giving up your weapons until the State no longer dictates the rules but actually is a public ‘servant’ and obeys the rules
So it's the state shooting children in schools?
You've got the gun. What are you going to do about it?
Having a gun is no answer. It's part of the problem. The other is the wrong people being able to get them too easily.
This is going nowhere. We differ . The State actively promotes division and atrocity. That isn’t changing anytime soon. I’d keep your weapon personally . End of
I genuinely hope that your values around gun control lead to the better social outcomes that I'm sure that we both hope for. I just don't agree with you.
I do value the honest engagement, and hope for the best outcomes for us all.
Thank you. I enjoyed that.
All the best, and yes we do both wish for a positive outcome. 🤝
>So it's the state shooting children in schools
Likely, yes. Pretty much all terrorism is planned and executed by state sponsored actors.
Are you living under the rock or something? The majority of events, tagged as terrorism, are always supported by some state. Not excluding the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
The United States has at various times in recent history provided support to terrorist and paramilitary organizations around the world. It has also provided assistance to numerous authoritarian regimes that have used state terrorism as a tool of repression...
There's a world of difference between your society - the state that you democratically form, and whose values you defend, and someone elses state.
How is enabling gunmen from our society to shoot our children, protecting us all from the actions of an external state?
It seems to me that is a conflation of different, and unrelated, issues in order to justifying an action that lacks a logical defence.
Criminality is criminality. A strong united society can stand better against it, than one riven by division and fear, and fighting amongst itself.
You asked for evidence, I gave you the evidence. Evidence of your own government killing their own people. The same people you want to take the guns from.
Stop moving the goalposts and look at the issue from a different perspective.
@note1h9r4qtuhe5g78jg6kdcm0w005snmve3jg7hll6lg2jxdhcdqrhaql8dfxn The wrong people will always be able to get them too easily.
Of course. Bad people will always find ways to do bad things.
The only question is does society make things easy for them, or hard. Do we set values and standards, and introduce a jeopardy in contravening them. Or just leave it to the individual.
My view is that freedom confers a responsibility on the individual, If we value the benefits of membership of society and the safety, prosperity and opportunity, that it confers on us, we must protect it.
We protect it by agreeing collectively the values of our society, by gathering together and saying that adhering to those standards is the cost of membership, and holding the people and our appointed representatives equally democratically accountable for those values and behaviors.
If you don't believe in that you are antidemocratic, and antisocial, by definition.
I'm happy you are on nostr because your opinion on the state infringing on gun rights is very different. Glad to see some variety
It's interesting that you suggest that not thinking that anyone should have easy access to firearms, to shoot whoever they feel like, is an unusual view.
I assume that you think that everyone should also have free access to drugs, birth control, abortion, the right to express themselves politically, and define their own gender and sexuality as well?
It's the same value set, yes? The rights of the individual taking precedence over social considerations?
>I assume that you think that everyone should also have free access to drugs, birth control, abortion, the right to express themselves politically, and define their own gender and sexuality as well?
Yes
.... and you need a strong coherent society for that. To provide the infrastructure and services to allow individuals to flourish. Or you will have to spend all day growing your own turnips and fending off those who would steal, rather than grow.
I think you are conflating a strong coherent society with a strong (arm) government. America existed for over 100 years with virtually no tax. You vote with your money, ie you pay for what you want, need, and value in the world. The individual is the ultimate and most abused minority.
There will always be someone, looking to steal fruits of your labour. That's why having guns is important.
One person with a gun can never hold out against an organised enemy.
That's why it's important to have the most organised, strongest, most coherent society. Working together with tolerance and fairness.
The most organised, strongest, most coherent societ is attacking brown people around the world. Open your eyes.
First, build a society that would work together with tolerance and fairness and then talk about gun control. Impossible to do this the other way round.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
The trouble is it's quite hard to build a safe and fair society, when a section of the potential members of it insist on holding the others at gunpoint, and saying the slaughter of their children in school is the price society should pay for their beliefs.
I mean what is important enough for these idiots to actually have a social dialogue around it? It's totally unreasonable.
You say only the government should have the power to hold people at gunpoint. Use any euphemism you like, but you are taking a pro-totalitarianism stance. Genocide can only happen after people willfully disarm themselves and allow a small group of "protectors" to obtain a monopoly on violence.
No. You're saying, take guns from people and deal with the government later. You won't stand a chance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/podcasts/the-daily/myanmar-military-coup-economy.html
If people won't be able to shoot, they'll use knifes. Look at the UK.
And I agree, if someone want to create a new gender and call themselves a bird, it should be allowed to do so, as long as they are 18/21, not 12.
Criminality, is something that we as a society should police, to enforce the social values that we have democratically mandated. Whether that's with guns, knives, or spreadsheets. That's not in doubt if you believe in law and order.
The question is, what values is it appropriate for society to mandate? Should the preferences of a small minority, take precedence over a wider constituencies right to live in freedom from fear?
The notion that 'what I believe' allows the individual to mandate behavior that threatens a wider society is surely intolerant, and thus dangerous.... on many levels?
The thugs that take your money with the threat of murder - that's your taxes. If you think American state violence is only directed externally, that's not so. They are working to divide the American people just like they do to shithole countries.
Then you are not doing it right. You need to elect governments that work in societies best interests, and hold them democratically accountable.
You can't do that acting as a bunch of individuals, without tolerance and negotiating shared values.
The government forcefully takes away your power (money), and then promises you their little multiple choice questionaires are where your power really is. Do you seriously believe that? They select the candidates. 2016 was botched but that "mistake" has been "fixed"
Hundreds of years of governments, not being bothered about their people says otherwise. I prefer buying #Bitcoin and taking the power slowly from the government instead of your solution that never works.
Governments are the representative of the people, elected by the people, directed by the people, and held account by the people.
If there's a problem with the government, it's because the people aren't doing a good enough job.
Governments cannot represent the people as a whole unless everyone wants exactly the same thing. If the government does what the majority wants, then they would be oppressing minorities.
This is a misunderstanding of socialisation. Nobody gets exactly what they want. But through Democratic discussion a society can set it's values, and with tolerance allow people freedom within that.
The reason that you make that compromise is to be better, stronger, offer more opportunity, and safety, than fighting for that alone. Which you just don't have the power to achieve on your own. Against a legion of other views wanting to take what's yours.
The problem is that we have been persuaded to not value society, and put the levers in the hands of those who serve other interests.
Our bad.
The solution is to gather together, agree shared values, and democratically seize control of our destiny.
No individual, however well armed, can do that. If there are enough of us we just need the pen, and the ballot box.
If nobody gets exactly what they want, then the government does not actually represent the people.
The existence of the government requires there to be taxation which is theft. The existence of government is unnecessary and evil. The free market can provide everything we need.
Politicians only care about gaining power and staying in power. They do not care about the people. Political influence is purchased for, not voted for. The vote of the average person does not matter.
>If nobody gets exactly what they want, then the government does not actually represent the people.
I am very sorry that you have so little understanding about human civilization, and what the success of our species is built on. I don't know who has done it to you, but we as a society need to hunt them down and stop them.
Sometimes there's just not enough sentience to work with. It needs intervention.
And your solution is to take guns of the people BEFORE fixing the government?
Expect things getting much worse:
The Rohingya genocide is an ongoing genocide of the Muslim Rohingya people consisting of arson, rape, ethnic cleansing, and infanticide by the Burmese military.
You seriously think that criminals won't have guns if they won't be allowed? Think again.
this is the falacy of gun control
it will make it harder for decent folk
criminals will still be armed to their teeth and shootings wont stop happening, but anyone with intention of following the law will have a hard time complying...
hard to grap for some people but its quite simple
My cat got eaten by a mountain lion and it completely changed my opinion on guns.
😿sorry to hear that...damn
Damn...sorry to hear that Martell.
Her name was Elfie. She was as magical as they come. RIP.
On the topic though, if you live in a city, it’s easy to think guns should be banned. In rural areas there is more danger in everyday life. Your own life and family’s life can be at risk. Not just pets. 
Sorry for your loss. Never was a cat person until we moved out to our property. We got 2 "barn cats" and I really enjoy them.
I grew up around guns so I am very comfortable with them. Beautiful cat!
That's awful, sorry fren 🫂
Gun control is sold to people as protection from criminals. But like usual, the government lies and it has nothing to do with that. The first amendment is to enable the people to protect themselves from government. Period.
Armed individuals collectively ARE the big dog that keeps the hungry beast at bay.
Socially funded and democratically directed armed forces. Not armed individuals.
Armed individuals who think they are the bulwarks of society, are generally more of a danger to it.
It's centralization of force. Centralization is the most dangerous vile.
If you decentralize everything, you are too busy growing your food, and defending it, to do anything else.
The answer is to do socialization better, not usher in a new dark age.
That requires trust in people with guns. History shows it usually doesn't end well for the ones without guns.
Wrong.
2020: The Year Governments Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Their Own People
https://anti-empire.com/2020-the-year-governments-killed-hundreds-of-thousands-of-their-own-people/
Maybe It would be a better standoff than thugs and governments with guns against defenceless public. Until comming to the understanding that if you can force your way, I will counter with equal or measurably equal backlash.
Decentralization doesn't mean individualization of everything. Current modern civilization requires (and is a product of) some high level of centralization of capital, minds, research, etc. To achieve higher properity. Yet available tech allows for a huge level of decentralization. There shall be a balance. Socialization without serious amount of decentralization leads to soviet communism which equals total slavery such as current situation in china or its islamic speciman in Iran under clerics.
Liberalism seems to be the eppicentre to a just decentral system.
Around 2015–2016, The Guardian newspaper ran a database called The Counted, which tracked US killings by police and other law enforcement agencies including from gunshots, tasers, car accidents and custody deaths. They counted 1,146 deaths for 2015 and 1,093 deaths for 2016.
Show me the "Socially funded and democratically directed armed forces", please.
