The end game of gun control

[Lucrum]

Quote from Martinghoul:

This is the most ridiculous, illogical load of hogwash I have heard.

I won't speak of the other stuff

A pity really, because the "other stuff" alone is enough to substantiate the argument.

but, as to 1, to imagine that the ability to legally bear arms would have helped Russian dissidents to resist Stalin's purges is beyond ludicrous. Moreover, we know for a fact that it didn't help senior Red Army officers, like Marshal Tukhachevsky, who could and did bear arms.

A statement I consider to be at least partially true.
Although personally I'd rather have the option of going down fighting as opposed to being rounded up like defenseless sheep for the slaughter. I don't see how many of those "purged" choosing not to fight in and of itself necesarily renders the whole argument "delusional".

Whoever suggests such a thing is delusional. I think people like that shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, as they clearly lack a functioning brain.

Is it possible they just disagree with the anti gun nuts?

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Lucrum:
A pity really, because the "other stuff" alone is enough to substantiate the argument.

I don't see that. Given the author's cavalier treatment of history in the specific case I have mentioned, why should I presume his other points are more valid?

A statement I consider to be at least partially true.
Although personally I'd rather have the option of going down fighting as opposed to being rounded up like defenseless sheep for the slaughter. I don't see how many of those "purged" choosing not to fight in and of itself necesarily renders the whole argument "delusional".

I think you may have lost sight of the original statement. What you're saying is precisely my point. When a person decides whether to resist or not, it doesn't really matter whether they're armed or not. Armed Red Army officers gave up and went to their deaths without a fight (I can only imagine that it may have been a matter of honour to them). On the other hand, unarmed dissidents fought against the regime in their way, suffered for it, but eventually won (at least they contributed to the victory).

Is it possible they just disagree with the anti gun nuts?

Well, what does it have to do with "anti gun nuts"? Whether you disagree with a particular view or not, you have to make a sound argument that stands on its own merits. You can't refute nonsense with a different bunch of nonsense.

Now may I ask you a question, pls?

 

[BSAM]

Are the people of Egypt bringing about dramatic changes in their country because they are armed up with AR-15s???

Just answer the question. Yes or no.

No, no just answer the question. No, don't say it's because it's different over here. Ah, ah, ah, ah,.....Just answer the question.

 

[Ricter]

Imho Lucrum had a good point, but when revolt does reach "national" proportions then, yeah, guns aren't so necessary, the population has basically unionized at that point, and the factories that sustain a military would be idle or simply deny them supplies.

 

[Hello]

Liberals seem to think that the people who want to keep guns for protection against the government, have some grandiose plan of one day lining up all their people on one side, and all the governments people/military on the other side, and going toe to toe with them like they did back in the days of the civil war, and muskets. I dont think that any of the people who believe in the constitutional right to bear arms for protection against the government have fantasies about winning a war like that, it would just be suicidal.

However if all of a sudden the government decided it is going to start taking shit, or if there is civil war and government starts taking away guns, the simple fact that you can sit inside your door waiting for them to come and take out 15 of them and most likely lose your life as well in the process leaves the power in the peoples hands. So long as a person is armed, and they are willing to die for their freedoms, the government will never be able to win that battle, because they will need 15 people to take out 1 and they will have no way of knowing who is good and who is bad, until people start shooting. These mass shootings are a good example, there is no way to know who is going to go into a crowd and start shooting until the guy goes out and does it, so there is basically no way to stop it. So aside from completely annihilating its own citizenry, the government doesnt stand a chance in this case. When you give a gun to someone who is more than willing to die for his cause he becomes a very dangerous weapon, this is always the case in civil war, or war in general. So a well armed citizenry is infact still a very good way of keeping the balance of power in check, even though the people have weapons that pales in comparison to the military's.

You need not look further than afghanistan to figure this out, look at how long we have been there? By all accounts we should have been out of there years ago, they basically have pea shooters compared to the things that the U.S. army has, but the u.s. army really doesnt have a way of determining who is good and bad, until people start firing, its not as if the bad guys come marked with a scarlet letter. Now imagine the government trying to suppress 100 million well armed people within their own country.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from BSAM:

Are the people of Egypt bringing about dramatic changes in their country because they are armed up with AR-15s???

Just answer the question. Yes or no.

No, but then the changes might very well have come sooner if they were armed.

Quote from Martinghoul:

Now may I ask you a question, pls?

Do I need an attorney present?

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Lucrum:
Do I need an attorney present?

Nah, nothing of the sort... I just wanted to ask if you ever experienced civil unrest or, worse yet, civil war.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Nah, nothing of the sort... I just wanted to ask if you ever experienced civil unrest or, worse yet, civil war.

Well I have been "asked to leave" a couple of bars years ago. (Factually speaking though, it wasn't my fault.)

More seriously though, uh...nope. The closest I can recall ever coming to bonafide unrest would be driving through L.A. a short time after the King riots.

 

[pspr]

Martin, I think the examples listed by the OP provides an ample number of examples where a disarmed populace was slaughtered. To provide adequate proof that they could have avoided such an outcome had they been armed is beyond the amount of research, analysis and prose I am willing to commit to this argument. Unless you would like to pay me an hourly rate. Actually, proving the argument is probably not even possible on a per event basis. However, I do feel there is adequate justification for the conclusion reached by the OP.

Small group - as in a few hundred as opposed to tens of thousands. And, as you state, the officers did not resist as they had probably already accepted their fate and chose honor.

Quote from Martinghoul:

Firstly, we're talking about causation, rather than correlation. Secondly, as I mentioned already, you/author quoted in the OP are the ones making a categorical statement that there is causation. This implies that, in order to disprove the statement, I don't have to prove that it's always false, I just have to provide a counterexample (which I have done). So, to reiterate, the onus of providing proof for the original statement remains on you, as a matter of simple propositional logic.

And, thing is, I am not even asking for proof. Pls give me an example where a population (or a group) that was intent to fight a tyrant/aggressor couldn't do so because they were previously disarmed and couldn't get hold of weapons.

As to the taking down of a small group, I am not entirely sure what you mean here. Maybe you could clarify.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from pspr:
Martin, I think the examples listed by the OP provides an ample number of examples where a disarmed populace was slaughtered. To provide adequate proof that they could have avoided such an outcome had they been armed is beyond the amount of research, analysis and prose I am willing to commit to this argument. Unless you would like to pay me an hourly rate. Actually, proving the argument is probably not even possible on a per event basis. However, I do feel there is adequate justification for the conclusion reached by the OP.

Small group - as in a few hundred as opposed to tens of thousands. And, as you state, the officers did not resist as they had probably already accepted their fate and chose honor.

Sure, let's agree to disagree on this...