I'm honestly still baffled by how the concept of "freedom" got conflated with gun ownership in the US.
Personally I prefer the freedom of not having to be worried about being shot by any disgruntled imbecile who takes advantage of his "right" to a gun.
I would really appreciate an explanation of this. Right now it seams like just a fantastic marketing/brainwashing strategy by the NRA but I would love to hear a well explained argument for this.
Have you read a bunch of literature online about these topics?
I feel like there are many, many, pro-second amendment groups, not just the NRA, and perhaps that could shed a little light on it.
I'm willing to bet there are many reasons.
Off the top of my head:
- An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation. Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime. So if you want the freedom to protect your basic right to survive and defend yourself, a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers. You don't have to be young and strong, just well versed in using the weapon and in possession of it.
- The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil rights or due process. People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan.
Etc.
This really isn't a topic that I am expert in but there has to be more reasons if you look for them.
> An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation.
If you want to ensure self preservation, take steps to create an environment where the likelihood of survival is higher not lower. All the reliable evidence that I've seen points to higher gun ownership correlating strongly with higher murder and suicide rates and to the USA being an outlier in terms of violent crime as compared to other developed countries.
> Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime.
Well where that's true (and having lived in several countries, its not true everywhere) that's certainly a failing in law enforcement.
> a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers.
This is extremely doubtful. Attackers generally attack in groups. They typically have planned their attack whilst you're taken by surprise. Also criminals are generally better versed in violence than the typical citizen. Pulling out your gun is often likely to turn a robbery into robbery and murder.
> The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil rights or due process.
This is the most ludicrous of all the gun lobby arguments. Seriously, you're planning on subverting the US government with your collection of handguns? The same government that spends more than 500 Billion on military expenditure/year?
> People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is a failed state. The Taliban are likely funded by a lot of well heeled supporters included their partners in the Heroine trade.
I feel like your initial comment was in bad faith.
You've shifted from "I don't understand the argument."
to
"I don't agree with the argument."
These are two very different things, and I would have responded very differently if you had written the latter. More precisely I wouldn't have responded at all. There are lots of topics where my personal opinions are one thing, but I do understand people's rationale for believing something very different.
And most importantly, for my peace of mind, I try to maintain the humility to realize that just because I came to a conclusion doesn't mean I am a priori correct. I am not necessarily smarter or more well informed than the people with whom I disagree, so I maintain skepticism about how substantive my opinion is.
YMMV but this general concept keeps me mellower and happier than imagining I am somehow on the right side of every issue.
Sorry, I realize I was heavy handed in my reply and I've edited it slightly.
I feel I should rephrase - I personally believe the arguments as stated are largely tools of propaganda by pro-gun lobbies and it baffles me that this isn't obvious. (And again I'd be eager to see evidence that this is not the case and there is justification for conflating freedom with gun ownership).
I appreciate you taking the time to engage in this discussion.
> This is the most ludicrous of all the gun lobby arguments. Seriously, you're planning on subverting the US government with your collection of handguns?
You’re missing a key piece here. The local law enforcement would be tasked with going house to house to collect guns. And none of them would be on board with getting shot by citizens defending their rights.
And again, what red blooded American soldier, commander, general is going to follow that order? There is a method to this madness. Is it ideal? Nope, but it works for us.
Freedom is always about increased risk (and increased potential reward). Freedom "of not having to be worried" is by definition an oxymoron, regardless of whether you're talking about gun control, healthcare or other issues.
It's OK to want less freedom, every thing is good in balance. Just don't be confused by what this word means.
Personally I prefer the freedom of not having to be worried about being shot by any disgruntled imbecile who takes advantage of his "right" to a gun.
I would really appreciate an explanation of this. Right now it seams like just a fantastic marketing/brainwashing strategy by the NRA but I would love to hear a well explained argument for this.