Should Firearms Be Banned From The United States Citizens?

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

That's generally what happens when you're not trying to raze a town to the ground in order to get your way. Tanks and missiles have a lot of firepower, but it doesn't get used to cause maximum harm. The US following the basic rules of war has a much harder time addressing foreign combatants, mainly because they are trying not to harm other people. If you're talking about a tyrannical government, the idea that they'd be beholden to international law and standards for combat is kind of silly.

...so you think they'd be more than willing to raze American towns?!?  The reason for not leveling towns and villages isn't international law (see WWII and/or Vietnam), it's to win hearts and minds because you can't maintain control of an area without the consent of people living there.

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

...so you think they'd be more than willing to raze American towns?!?  The reason for not leveling towns and villages isn't international law (see WWII and/or Vietnam), it's to win hearts and minds because you can't maintain control of an area without the consent of people living there.

Honestly, you tell me. I don't think I fully understand the argument that, when our government becomes tyrannical, we need guns to protect ourselves. Are we talking about the type of tyranny that gets squeamish about pulling out the big guns to quell insurrection? Isn't that what we're talking about, a situation where the government is so oppressive that armed insurrection is a necessity? If the idea is to win hearts and minds, at what point does a government that is engendering this kind of response accomplishing that goal?

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

Honestly, you tell me. I don't think I fully understand the argument that, when our government becomes tyrannical, we need guns to protect ourselves. Are we talking about the type of tyranny that gets squeamish about pulling out the big guns to quell insurrection? Isn't that what we're talking about, a situation where the government is so oppressive that armed insurrection is a necessity? If the idea is to win hearts and minds, at what point does a government that is engendering this kind of response accomplishing that goal?

We're talking about a benevolent dictator who does some good things for the population in general while trampling on the Constitution.  That's where such a thing would start in this country.

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

We're talking about a benevolent dictator who does some good things for the population in general while trampling on the Constitution.  That's where such a thing would start in this country.

So a benevolent dictator... honestly, while I kind of get that, I'm not getting why an armed insurrection solves best for the problem.

I mean, if we're looking at this realistically, this would be someone who is overcoming the system of checks and balances in some staggering ways, essentially eschewing the USSC and the legislature in their entirety. You really can't have a dictator unless those two institutions are, for all intents and purposes, reduced to a toothless form where they can effectively do nothing. The democratic process would, effectively, cease to exist, since the voting process would either be corrupted to the point that no one else could win, or made meaningless by some other means. Peaceful protests would have to be effectively nullified as well, though I guess that doesn't have to be through violent means (not really sure how else you'd get people to stop protesting these aspects of our government being null and void, but I'm open to suggestions).

So, I guess the idea is to have people storming the White House to remove this monster from office? Or just attempting to fight against the oppressive aspects of it in their own backyards? At that point, I guess my problem is that the dictator in question is going to be effectively pushed to take stronger action to put down these efforts, turning non-benevolent in a hurry. I suppose for some short period of time they're likely to adhere to basic principles and treat their populations in a benevolent fashion, but it seems to me that if they have a mass insurrection of individuals dissatisfied with how they're running the country, that honeymoon period isn't going to last too long. And even if it does last a while, what, exactly, is the effort to overthrow the government banking on? That the government is just going to continue being benevolent until they're overthrown? That doesn't match any historical examples of a rising dictatorship within a nation and the resulting backlash from citizens of said nation that I can think of.

Maybe I'm just thinking on this wrong. Could you give me some idea of what the scenario looks like to you?

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

So a benevolent dictator... honestly, while I kind of get that, I'm not getting why an armed insurrection solves best for the problem.

I mean, if we're looking at this realistically, this would be someone who is overcoming the system of checks and balances in some staggering ways, essentially eschewing the USSC and the legislature in their entirety. You really can't have a dictator unless those two institutions are, for all intents and purposes, reduced to a toothless form where they can effectively do nothing. The democratic process would, effectively, cease to exist, since the voting process would either be corrupted to the point that no one else could win, or made meaningless by some other means. Peaceful protests would have to be effectively nullified as well, though I guess that doesn't have to be through violent means (not really sure how else you'd get people to stop protesting these aspects of our government being null and void, but I'm open to suggestions).

So, I guess the idea is to have people storming the White House to remove this monster from office? Or just attempting to fight against the oppressive aspects of it in their own backyards? At that point, I guess my problem is that the dictator in question is going to be effectively pushed to take stronger action to put down these efforts, turning non-benevolent in a hurry. I suppose for some short period of time they're likely to adhere to basic principles and treat their populations in a benevolent fashion, but it seems to me that if they have a mass insurrection of individuals dissatisfied with how they're running the country, that honeymoon period isn't going to last too long. And even if it does last a while, what, exactly, is the effort to overthrow the government banking on? That the government is just going to continue being benevolent until they're overthrown? That doesn't match any historical examples of a rising dictatorship within a nation and the resulting backlash from citizens of said nation that I can think of.

Maybe I'm just thinking on this wrong. Could you give me some idea of what the scenario looks like to you?

Every dictator is benevolent, at the start.  The one thing Hitler, Mussolini, Papa Doc, Ceaușescu, Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, etc., et al, were all benevolent dictators when they initially seized power.  A dictator cannot seize power without the, at least implicit, consent of the governed.  One of the first orders of business for all of them was to make sure the governed had no means to resist the power of the state.  As they became corrupted, they took more power from the people and gave it to (themselves) the state.  That’s much more difficult here.  The general populace has the means to resist the government.  So to answer your questions, an out-and-out tyrant can't come to power as they would not have the consent of the governed, they'll never amass enough support to come to power.  A benevolent (at the start) tyrant will first want to deprive the masses of any means to resist the state; the right to keep and bear arms chief among them.

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

Every dictator is benevolent, at the start.  The one thing Hitler, Mussolini, Papa Doc, Ceaușescu, Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, etc., et al, were all benevolent dictators when they initially seized power.  A dictator cannot seize power without the, at least implicit, consent of the governed.  One of the first orders of business for all of them was to make sure the governed had no means to resist the power of the state.  As they became corrupted, they took more power from the people and gave it to (themselves) the state.  That’s much more difficult here.  The general populace has the means to resist the government.  So to answer your questions, an out-and-out tyrant can't come to power as they would not have the consent of the governed, they'll never amass enough support to come to power.  A benevolent (at the start) tyrant will first want to deprive the masses of any means to resist the state; the right to keep and bear arms chief among them.

I suppose I'm not really framing this correctly, because I don't feel like I'm getting a solid answer to the issues I'm presenting. I accept that a benevolent dictator can exist, and that they gain some measure of support from the general public. I understand that they proceed to take away weapons from the public. The difficulty I have is that I don't really understand how having those weapons solves for the rise of said dictators. It seems to me, especially given your analysis here, that if such a dictator were to rise to power in the US, they would have general consent for their leadership. So, what exactly is the response of this armed minority? Revolt? Assassination? Threats? Protest? It seems as though an armed revolt would lead to an armed crackdown at some stage. Assassination might work, but it's assuming quite a bit about the capacity of an individual or group to kill this dictator, and it doesn't scream "personal defense from tyranny." Neither threats nor protests really require mass ownership of guns to be successful. Not sure what other options are possible, or how these methods might become effective.

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

I suppose I'm not really framing this correctly, because I don't feel like I'm getting a solid answer to the issues I'm presenting. I accept that a benevolent dictator can exist, and that they gain some measure of support from the general public. I understand that they proceed to take away weapons from the public. The difficulty I have is that I don't really understand how having those weapons solves for the rise of said dictators. It seems to me, especially given your analysis here, that if such a dictator were to rise to power in the US, they would have general consent for their leadership. So, what exactly is the response of this armed minority? Revolt? Assassination? Threats? Protest? It seems as though an armed revolt would lead to an armed crackdown at some stage. Assassination might work, but it's assuming quite a bit about the capacity of an individual or group to kill this dictator, and it doesn't scream "personal defense from tyranny." Neither threats nor protests really require mass ownership of guns to be successful. Not sure what other options are possible, or how these methods might become effective.

Protests don't require mass ownership of guns to be successful?  Perhaps you can point to all of the successful unarmed protests of Hitler, Mussolini, Papa Doc, Ceaușescu, Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, etc.

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

Protests don't require mass ownership of guns to be successful?  Perhaps you can point to all of the successful unarmed protests of Hitler, Mussolini, Papa Doc, Ceaușescu, Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, etc.

That's not an answer to my question. You're essentially just stating that, because those protests (which likely occurred after a point that the leader in question was no longer benevolent) were unsuccessful, the reason they were unsuccessful is because the people protesting were unarmed. You're not providing any evidence that an armed protest would suddenly yield results under a benevolent dictatorship. These leaders all turned rather violent because they were faced with a public that bristled at the steps they were taking past benevolence. When people responded to them in protest, they often put down those protests rather violently. Why would having guns prevent those violent reprisals? Hell, why wouldn't violent protests accelerate those violent reprisals?

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

That's not an answer to my question. You're essentially just stating that, because those protests (which likely occurred after a point that the leader in question was no longer benevolent) were unsuccessful, the reason they were unsuccessful is because the people protesting were unarmed. You're not providing any evidence that an armed protest would suddenly yield results under a benevolent dictatorship. These leaders all turned rather violent because they were faced with a public that bristled at the steps they were taking past benevolence. When people responded to them in protest, they often put down those protests rather violently. Why would having guns prevent those violent reprisals? Hell, why wouldn't violent protests accelerate those violent reprisals?

No, I'm saying an armed citizenry keeps dictators from rising to power in the first place. 

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

No, I'm saying an armed citizenry keeps dictators from rising to power in the first place. 

So I'll repeat my earlier question: how? What about a citizenry having access to guns puts a would-be dictator in his (let's face it, it's likely a guy) place? I'm asking for a play-by-play here of how this would actually work. What point would the dictator be at when the response occurs? What does the response look like? Why would it be successful?

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

So I'll repeat my earlier question: how? What about a citizenry having access to guns puts a would-be dictator in his (let's face it, it's likely a guy) place? I'm asking for a play-by-play here of how this would actually work. What point would the dictator be at when the response occurs? What does the response look like? Why would it be successful?

Here's the play-by-play;

1) Would-be tyrant tries to rise to power
2) Would-be tyrant sees he can't exert all that much control over a public that has the means to resist
3) Would-be tyrant finds something else to occupy his time

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

Here's the play-by-play;

1) Would-be tyrant tries to rise to power
2) Would-be tyrant sees he can't exert all that much control over a public that has the means to resist
3) Would-be tyrant finds something else to occupy his time

So... the would-be tyrant is stopped before he becomes a benevolent dictator, presumably because people in the public threaten him with violent reprisal? I mean, from what you said, the process of becoming a benevolent dictator is an attempt to get most of the population on his side. I guess we're talking about some vocal minority that really doesn't like what he's doing and aims to back that up with weapons? Seems to me that if the majority of people are on this guy's side, they're going to be looked upon as more terrorist-like in their efforts than supportive of freedom. At the point that he becomes a benevolent dictator, the basis is stronger, but you keep assuming that such a dictator would never turn to violent means of response to these protesters if they, you know, threatened him with violence. Seems like that would provide adequate basis for responding with actual violence.

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

So... the would-be tyrant is stopped before he becomes a benevolent dictator, presumably because people in the public threaten him with violent reprisal? I mean, from what you said, the process of becoming a benevolent dictator is an attempt to get most of the population on his side. I guess we're talking about some vocal minority that really doesn't like what he's doing and aims to back that up with weapons? Seems to me that if the majority of people are on this guy's side, they're going to be looked upon as more terrorist-like in their efforts than supportive of freedom. At the point that he becomes a benevolent dictator, the basis is stronger, but you keep assuming that such a dictator would never turn to violent means of response to these protesters if they, you know, threatened him with violence. Seems like that would provide adequate basis for responding with actual violence.

A growing majority of Americans support the right to bear arms.  Would-be tyrant would lose his support if he tried to ban guns (much as Clinton lost Congress in the wake of his useless assault weapons ban).

whiteflame

CYDdharta said:

A growing majority of Americans support the right to bear arms.  Would-be tyrant would lose his support if he tried to ban guns (much as Clinton lost Congress in the wake of his useless assault weapons ban).

I... really think you're missing my point. If a dictator really wanted to take control over the country, they wouldn't try to remove guns first, but that doesn't mean they would never gain control over the country. The threat of guns doesn't inherently stop a dictator who wants to seize power from seizing power. The idea that they would be deterred simply because the populous is armed sounds rather absurd to me. It's not as though any former dictator functioned under the impression that they were never going to face a large group of armed enemies in their rise to power. Many of the same dictators you keep naming knew that they wanted to go to war with other countries who had the capacity to fight back with equal firepower, yet for some reason, having an armed population solves for a dictator's rise to power? 

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

I... really think you're missing my point. If a dictator really wanted to take control over the country, they wouldn't try to remove guns first, but that doesn't mean they would never gain control over the country. The threat of guns doesn't inherently stop a dictator who wants to seize power from seizing power. The idea that they would be deterred simply because the populous is armed sounds rather absurd to me. It's not as though any former dictator functioned under the impression that they were never going to face a large group of armed enemies in their rise to power. Many of the same dictators you keep naming knew that they wanted to go to war with other countries who had the capacity to fight back with equal firepower, yet for some reason, having an armed population solves for a dictator's rise to power? 

...and you keep missing my point.  There is a reason no one has tried to stay in power in the US for more than four years without an election.  The population has the means to resist the government if needed.  If the threat of an armed populace doesn't stop a dictator from seizing power, why is disarming the populace always one of the first actions a dictator takes before making such a power grab?

whiteflame

CYDdharta said: 

...and you keep missing my point.  There is a reason no one has tried to stay in power in the US for more than four years without an election.  The population has the means to resist the government if needed.  If the threat of an armed populace doesn't stop a dictator from seizing power, why is disarming the populace always one of the first actions a dictator takes before making such a power grab?

Alright, there's a lot here to unpack.

For some reason, you're under the perception that presidents would have tried to stay in power beyond their 4 year term if not for the fact that the public has guns. Not the laws in place that require that an election be run every four years. Not the checks and balances of the judiciary and legislature. Not the possibility that allied nations will turn on them, or that the secret service or military will cease to accept their leadership. Guns are the reason, because elected officials are afraid that if they try to extend their terms, they'll be threatened with physical violence from an unruly mob. That's why.

The population has a means to resist the government regardless of whether or not guns are available. Protest is that means, and it doesn't require guns. I know you've already argued that protest is basically worthless, but if a government is willing to absolutely subjugate the people to the point that will just arrest all the protesters, then I would argue we're past the point that guns are really going to help. At that point, basic civil liberties are already gone. Why would the government not use military hardware to enforce its rule? Beyond that, why wouldn't a government get violent in return if it saw a bunch of citizens arming up to resist it? 

As for why dictatorial governments disarm the people, one of the reasons may indeed be for reducing the amount of effort to takes to subjugate them. And that's probably your point: guns are an effective means of at least making it more difficult for a dictator to take total control over a population, if only because of small militia groups that would fight back and be difficult to quash quickly. The problem is that guns also escalate things rather quickly. Demagogues tend to have less incentive to harm their own people when they're not physically threatening them. Beyond that, there's a reasonable concern that all these people can manage is to make life a little more difficult for the dictator in question.

Is there some chance that this potential dictator is just going to say it's not worth his time and stop before he starts? I suppose it's possible. I can't know how a dictator thinks in the early stages of developing such a government. But it seems to me that their main concern would be whether they feel they can get most of the population on their side. Logically, if they can manage that, then any armed group that's against them could just be depicted as terrorists. If winning hearts and minds is all they really need to manage to assume a position where they have sufficient power to be called a dictator, then guns aren't going to affect that. 

Darkwolf

I don't believe they should be banned make them harder to get yes. Better back ground checks and maybe a physiology test, but and out right ban would do little. Looking from the stance of a murderer using a gun is easier but it is harder to get away with. Every gun has a serial number which can be tracked, after the shot you have gun shot residue on your body which they can test for, they can find the bullet and the casing which they can use to determine what kind of gun was used. So technically using something like a knife, bomb, or other weapon ( bow, or just running them over ) would be easier, and we don't track knifes, machetes, axes, car, or materials to make bombs 

Vaulk

@whiteflame

1. While protest is generally seen as helpful...I think we can all agree that you can just ignore it and generally nothing happens...nothing resembling dire consequences at least.   Protest is not a means to resist government subjugation.  We can debate that but if you apply a standard of "Forced domination" vs "Expression of disapproval" you'll see how one easily overcomes the other.

2. As long as the people of the United States remain armed (In regards to government  oppression) there will never be a point where guns aren't going to help.  We can debate this as well if you'd like and the topic is actually quite interesting.

3.  Your "Winning the hearts and minds" argument is spot on my friend.  You are exactly, 100% correct on that.  And if you'll pull up a google page...in about 10 minutes you can find the systematic perception change happening in regards to Guns and Gun owners in this Country for the past decade.

whiteflame

Vaulk said:

@whiteflame

1. While protest is generally seen as helpful...I think we can all agree that you can just ignore it and generally nothing happens...nothing resembling dire consequences at least.   Protest is not a means to resist government subjugation.  We can debate that but if you apply a standard of "Forced domination" vs "Expression of disapproval" you'll see how one easily overcomes the other.

2. As long as the people of the United States remain armed (In regards to government  oppression) there will never be a point where guns aren't going to help.  We can debate this as well if you'd like and the topic is actually quite interesting.

3.  Your "Winning the hearts and minds" argument is spot on my friend.  You are exactly, 100% correct on that.  And if you'll pull up a google page...in about 10 minutes you can find the systematic perception change happening in regards to Guns and Gun owners in this Country for the past decade.

1. I didn't say that protest was a perfect foil for a rising dictatorship. I said that having guns on hand during said protest, or for that matter, threatening the use of guns during said protest if you don't get your way, is no better. In fact, I'd argue that it's worse, since it sends a message that a portion of the population is more than willing to get violent. That's likely to incur a violent response. 

2. Really? I mean, are you really going to argue that guns are never a bad thing in a situation where you have a rising dictatorship? There's no instance where a dictator might try to paint individuals who bust them out in support of their rights as a terrorist group, or use their violence/threat of violence as a justification for using military force against the population? Never is a strong word.

3. I'm really not sure how this is responsive to my point in any way. We're talking about a benevolent dictator, i.e. someone who is actively trying to get a majority of the country on his side. Guns aren't going to alter his capacity to do so, just his ability to subjugate the remainder of the population.

Vaulk

@whiteflame

1. I'm not contending that protesting is not a perfect foil for a rising dictatorship...I'm contending that it's completely worthless in regards to your conclusion: 

whiteflame said:

The population has a means to resist the government regardless of whether or not guns are available. Protest is that means, and it doesn't require guns. 

Here you contend that the means to resist the government regardless of firearm availability is protest.  So since this is your side of the argument...how exactly does an expression of disapproval deter a government willing to forcefully subjugate its citizens?

2. This goes back to a particular statement you made in 1.  Regarding the issue of threatening the use of guns during a protest...I can't honestly imagine that as being effective in any way nor would I suggest it.  As an example,

I'd recommend looking at the Cliven Bundy situation.  While you'll find varying degrees of truth to what actually happened during that time...the short story of facts is as following:

A. Man refuses to pay for license to graze cattle.
B. Government decides to treat it as trespassing and react.
C. Government sends Federal Agents (One armed with a Sniper Rifle) with high powered rifles to surround Man's house.
D. Government sends Federal Agents to round up Man's cattle.
E. Man makes phone calls to the State Militia
F. State Militia arrives and Federal Agents are happy to get lost.
G. Government then tries to prosecute Man.
H. Case is completely dismissed and all charges dropped, says volumes about how the Government handled the situation.

It's not quite that cut and dry but this is a perfect example of how Guns (Even if you don't shoot them) prevent Government Tyranny.  The Federal Agent responsible for investigating the entire incident wrote a memo outlining that the Government agency responsible for this had created a “Punitive and ego-driven” law-enforcement buildup at Mr. Bundy’s ranch that included at least one sniper, as well as officers with long-range rifles".  

I see it as the Government went too far...citizens with guns put them back in their place.  It's amazing though...throughout all of this...no one was killed.  Law enforcement officers weren't shot, citizens weren't beaten, no loss of innocent life at all.  However...this wasn't a protest...this Militia showed up armed to the teeth and demanded that the Agents kindly F$%# off and then went and TOOK back the cattle...I suppose you could find some sort of expression of disapproval in there.

3. To your last point...I'm trying to make it clear that what you're talking about is already happening...only there's not enough Americans to bridge the gap between those that are afraid enough to concede and those that won't give up their freedoms.  You are right in your assertion that you'd only need so many to fall in line in order to win...you wouldn't have to convince EVERY single person to submit...only enough to make it appear that the opposition is an underwhelming minority.  And this is much of what's happening in America today.  

But to your statement: 
We're talking about a benevolent dictator, i.e. someone who is actively trying to get a majority of the country on his side. Guns aren't going to alter his capacity to do so, just his ability to subjugate the remainder of the population.

That's not true, the physical existence of the vast numbers of guns represents what many people call "Gun culture" in our Country and as long as that Gun Culture remains strong/powerful...a benevolent dictator won't be able to get the majority of the Country on his side...which is why he would need to demonize Guns...convince people that it's "Guns that are causing the problem".  This benevolent dictator would have to destroy Gun Culture in the U.S. to get enough people on his side.  Imagine trying to turn America into a communication free zone...how would you convince people to give up their cell phones and refrain from using them if the majority of people believed that owning a phone and communicating with others was a fundamental right?  Easy...convince people that Cell Phones are evil and make people afraid of them.  Suggest that they're killing people by the hundreds every day...nevermind that they can't move on their own...focus on the problem people...the problem is the inanimate object.  See how that works?

whiteflame

1. My point was that, if a government is considering the possibility of removing essential checks and balances in order to facilitate the rise of a dictator, that that government is just as likely to be persuaded away from that course of action by mass protests as it is by those same protesters wielding guns. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that a government going through the process of forcibly subjugating its people would listen to those same people. I've been arguing that those same people having guns doesn't substantially alter their willingness to listen to people who are upset with their leadership. It alters their response, for sure, but it doesn't suddenly make a dictatorial leader rethink the whole subjugation thing.

2. I know enough about the Bundy situation to know that your rundown of it is certainly not this simple, but I won't focus on that case because I don't think it has much to do with the broader discussion we're having.

I keep having to ask this question, and I don't feel I'm ever getting a straight answer: what tyranny are you talking about, precisely? If you're talking about government bureaucracy coming in and trying to enforce what may be an unfair or unreasonable law while maintaining a basic democratic republic with all the normal checks and balances, then the idea that guns function in a way that actual deters said enforcement is at least somewhat accurate. I'd say that protest works against that same kind of government, but I think all of that is besides the point. This is not a dictatorship. This is, at best, a subjective tyranny of government. You can say what you want about the government going too far in this instance (and I think that depends on what you're focused on), but this isn't a clear case of tyranny, nor is it one where the people of this ranch lacked any recourse.

Look, if you really want to delve into the Bundy case, we can do that. Personally, I think both sides escalated it, and despite the fact that no one died, it nearly did turn into a bloodbath. I think it's a good example of just how guns can turn a minor dispute into a major standoff that could have cost numerous lives. 

3. What you're trying to clear up is a lot less clear than you're making it out to be. The idea that we're already living in a tyranny is extremely subjective, as is the idea that guns are fundamentally checking back those tyrannies.

As for your response on the benevolent dictator argument, I figured you were continuing with CYDdharta's point, but if you really want to change it, we can go through your point. I'm not clear on how guns make it impossible for a benevolent dictator to win hearts and minds in the US. I suppose the gun culture inherently checks back against dictators who attempt to disarm the citizenry, but then... why wouldn't a benevolent dictator just not disarm the people? A lot of your response here seems to be that a benevolent dictator inherently has to spread misinformation to demonize guns for some reason, though you haven't stated what that reason is. Perhaps it's the idea that not doing so leaves the populace armed, but you haven't stated why they couldn't do that. It presents with some kind of risk to them I suppose, but not in the same way that it did for previous dictators, especially not when they have military hardware that far outstrips it.

Vaulk

@whiteflame

Fair is fair so I'll do this in answer form so as to not "Leave you without an answer.

1. My point was that, if a government is considering the possibility of removing essential checks and balances in order to facilitate the rise of a dictator, that that government is just as likely to be persuaded away from that course of action by mass protests as it is by those same protesters wielding guns. 

Ok, I acknowledge your point.  I also can't see how you've come to this conclusion.  What premise do you lean upon to arrive at the conclusion that expression of disapproval would be equally effective as the threat of violence when it comes to deterring a government from carrying out a sinister yet subtle plan of installing a dictator?  If the plan of the Government is as sinister as "Intent to install a dictatorship" then what is it about a protest that could/would/should deter them?  I need some sort of logical breakdown of the mentality behind this idea of "We as the government would be just as deterred from evil by protests as we would from the legitimate threat of violence".  IF you can make sense of this...I might just concede your point but I honestly can't see it.

2. I don't feel I'm ever getting a straight answer: what tyranny are you talking about, precisely?

Let's break it down and I'll try to use relevant examples of PRECISELY what I'm referring to:

1.  Example one: California Democrats toying with the idea of making it illegal to purchase a Bible in the State and outlawing the Religious text in the state.  This is the most recent prime example of what Government tyranny would look like.  State Governments outlawing the Bible is an excellent start to radically changing the fundamental principles of our Country and preparing this Nation for tyranny.  If you can strip a citizen's right to worship the God that gave us the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness then there's no limit to what you could do.  This is a precise example of the tyranny that would be effectively thwarted by an armed population.  The proposal to make it illegal to sell or buy the Bible in ANY part of the United States is sinister on so many levels.

2.  Example two: Right back to Cliven Bundy.  Yes Mr. Bundy was and most likely is still very much in the wrong.  He bought into the permit for years and suddenly didn't wanna anymore.  Shocker.  However, the response to a refusal to pay for a GRAZING permit being Men with guns surrounding your home is something straight out of "AMERICA'S DEADLIEST STANDOFFS".  I admit openly and wholly that Cliven Bundy is likely an and shouldn't have handled things the way he did however, his inappropriate behavior does nothing to negate or lessen the fact that Men who were sworn to uphold the law...took the law into their hands and bent it until it fit and were caught by a Federal Judge doing it.  Hence the case being dismissed with prejudice so it can NEVER BE TRIED AGAIN.

3.  Korematsu v. United States, which holds as legal precedence to this very day. 

4. PPACA (Obamacare).  The power to compel citizens to buy a product or service they may or may not want can’t even be justified under the Constitution’s commerce clause, which gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.  That said, welcome to compelled health insurance...and you will be punished for not purchasing.  Of course the powers that be have since suspended/crushed/wiped this away...I'm not 100% certain but then again most of the politicians that voted Obamacare into legalization had no idea what was in this bill.

Lastly, this will do an amazing job at explaining better than I possibly can just exactly what the anti-tyranny argument for the 2nd Amendment is.  It's a decent read if you have the time.

The degree of tyranny we live under is relative and depends on your definition.  Are we oppressed...to a degree yes.  Does the government exercise it's power and authority arbitrarily?  Well if we go by this standard then they're a tyrannical rex.

whiteflame

@Vaulk

1. I feel like most of my responses are just going to be about turning the same questions back on you. If a protest wouldn't stop a tyrannical dictatorship from being installed, why would the broad ownership of guns? My point is that I don't think anything would stop that so long as said government was willing to absolutely ignore basic rights. The argument that you and CYD seem to be presenting is that a legitimate threat of violence would give these efforts pause, yet I haven't seen a means by which that threat of violence could be executed without incurring a strong, military-based response that would overwhelm said threat of violence.

It seems to me that both of you are arguing that the ownership of guns suffices a clear deterrent effect, yet every time I try to simply clarify what kind of dictator we're talking about so that I can understand how they would go about deterring, the choice keeps shifting. In an instance where a would-be dictator is aiming to come to power, they are still subject to basic rules and standards in US law, and they are still at the whims of public opinion. If millions of people across the nation are turning out in protests against them, that's a deterrent effect against any efforts to remove rights at that stage. If we're talking about an established dictatorship where they've already dealt away with the basic representative government and are using military rule, then I fail to understand how any response is going to fundamentally deter them from continuing to assert control.

2. See, I have several problems with how you're framing this. You keep jumping back and forth between a dictatorship that is asserting dominance through military control and your vision of what a tyrannical leadership in the US looks like today. Forgetting the fact that California Democrats haven't actually passed such a law (and that characterization is flagrantly wrong in any case, as the bill in question focuses on restricting gay conversion therapy [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-bible-ban/]), forgetting the fact that the Bundy situation is much more complex than you're making it out to be, forgetting the fact that no law or judicial decision since the 1940's has ever been passed that relies on Korematsu v. US, and forgetting the fact that the "compelling" that occurs under Obamacare is not clearly taking away rights, all of this is really a pointless side conversation if you're trying to establish that we already live in a tyrannical country. You can't just do that by pointing to a few decisions that may or may not be viewed as tyrannical depending on which side of the political spectrum you happen to be on or your capacity to understand the application of USSC decisions. Beyond that, I would argue that threatening the government today with physical violence is not exactly an appropriate way to solve for these problems in status quo. 

I'll give the article a read, but the point of this conversation is that I'm asking you how you perceive it. If we live in a tyranny right now, why are guns a necessary check in the status quo to address perceived transgressions of government? I'll tell you now that people on the opposite side of this argument don't view the threat of physical violence as being exceptionally good for democracy or representative government, much less for civil discourse regarding policy.

whiteflame

Addendum: I'm not really seeing a response to the issues I'm presenting in that Vox article. It talks about states responding to federal attempts to seize control or alter our system of government substantially, which makes more sense as national guard members can be called in and those have military hardware. That really doesn't address the difficulties I have with treating individuals as an effective check, and the article itself discusses the negative impact that hotheads have on the prospects of citizens using those guns in a meaningful way that actually returns to the rule of law. Like you, it talks about how citizens can take down mighty armies brought forth by a tyrannical government, but I fail to see significant examples of this, nor a check back on the effect that armed citizens could have on militarizing a dictatorship in response to their threats.

Vaulk

@whiteflame

i'm seeing a pattern here.  I don't recall mentioning the military in all of this but I suppose it could've been assumed.  I operate with the understanding that there is no situation in which the U.S. armed forces would turn on the citizens and in the ever-so abysmal chance that they actually did...they wouldn't stand a chance.  The U.S. Military in total makes up less than 1% of the total population in the United States and just so happens to be strategically surrounded   on all sides by the civilian population at every single installation Nationwide.  

So playing the "What if" game.  In this theoretical situation that the U.S. military attempted to oppress the civilian population and the population fought back.  The entire Military would be cut off from logistics (Food, water, ammunition, equipment), completely surrounded on all sides by the enemy and vastly outnumbered 99 to 1.  Leaning towards the more realistic scenario...the U.S.Military would most likely remain dormant during an uprising or possibly join the fight because (While they do wear the uniform) they are the people too.

There's only one scenario where the U.S. military would willingly fire on innocent civilians and we're not remotely in that area of discussion.  

Now for starters, your opinion that if a protest wouldn't stop the Government...then neither would guns...I would argue that violence throughout history has solved more issues than has any other method of resolve since the beginning of time.  Just because something happens over 200 years ago that doesn't mean that it simply can't happen again.  We did it once to the British and had to resort to violence in order to make it happen.  The British weren't rounding up ethnic groups and committing genocide, they weren't using WMDs and they weren't terrorists...and we still brought the way of the Gun against them...and it worked.  

To clarify something, our forefathers worked tirelessly to create a system specifically built to prevent Government tyranny.  Do we need to wait until something horrible happens?  If you have an established right and the Government violates it continuously...is it NOT tyranny until someone dies?  How many people need to die before violation of rights are considered tyranny.  Your argument seems to be built upon the conclusion that "It's not tyranny until it reaches a certain level".

Apologies for this last:  

"If we're talking about an established dictatorship where they've already dealt away with the basic representative government and are using military rule, then I fail to understand how any response is going to fundamentally deter them from continuing to assert control".

Please see the American Revolution.

whiteflame

@Vaulk

That does clear things up a bit, though I still feel that, if we're talking about an actual absolutist dictatorship (i.e. one where the checks and balances are thrown out and a dictator essentially has complete control over the mechanisms governing our country, which would include the military), we would have to assume that they would use that military to assume some portion of their control over the country. I completely agree that it's a not at all feasible scenario that this kind of thing would ever happen, but when we're talking about a theoretical need to overthrow a tyrannical government, I do think we need to either go big or go home. Frankly, I think all we're discussing here is theoretical scenarios; I'd say you have a lot more to prove if you are going to argue that we're already there. As for them being overwhelmed... I don't know if I really buy that. Perhaps in the long run, depending on how much in the way of actual military incursions must occur, there's a decent chance that that military would be overwhelmed. However, we are talking about a regimented and trained military force, one that really doesn't really need to appear as boots on the ground in cities in order to have its presence felt. Aircraft would be particularly difficult to handle (along with unmanned drones) as would the usage of missiles. If much of the US population organized and if many of those people kept fighting despite the remote destructive efforts of the military, I can imagine a scenario where they eventually bring down said dictator, though the process to get there seems rather destructive. At that point, the military would be eventually cut off from their necessary resources (albeit that will take quite a while). In your more realistic scenario, it doesn't sound like the people owning weapons is bringing down the dictator, but rather the military turning against the dictator is more the effective means of removal.

But, as I say, all of this is theoretical. I believe that the entire discussion we're having about a need to fight back against a tyrannical government is theoretical, particularly when it comes to violent responses, which you've been arguing for.

So, let's get into what we do know from history. You argue that guns were effective against the British in the Revolutionary War. I'd like to point out that the difference between military hardware and personal weapons was far smaller back then. I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the British were sending a force overseas, which made troop movement and maintaining their forces in the colonies rather difficult to manage. But I'm not totally against the point you're making. I think that violence is a necessary tool to resolve many problems. The difficulty I'm having is two-fold. Since I'm not quite clear on the state of tyranny that you're arguing would occur, and particularly since it would be occurring in a country that has checks and balances maintaining a system that doesn't really allow for a dictator to occur, I'm not certain why a protest is doomed to fail in the scenario(s) you're suggesting. If those checks and balances exist, I think that there is strong reason to believe that protest can achieve the desired effect, so long as it encompasses a large enough subset of the population and is sustained. Is it 100% effective? No, but then, neither is violence. Again, without knowing precisely what the circumstances are, I can't say that I can even guess at what violence could accomplish or what the response to that violence would be. Still, if we're going into history, we can get some indications of what might happen. Aside from the basic fact that violence leads to numerous deaths, many dictators have used violence brought on by some subset of their people as justification for responding with violence. They treat them as terrorists or insurgents. Also, to my knowledge, most violent revolutions have led to less than spectacular outcomes for many nations, often involving more death, general governmental disruption, and often the rise of subsequent dictators. I'm not saying that every single revolution is bad, but it seems that the justification for violent revolution requires a rather high threshold because, on their face, violent revolutions tend to cause substantial harm. Engaging in it should be a last resort. I understand that you hold our system to be very sacred and that any violation or series of violations that leads to tyranny should have us on our hackles, but it seems to me that rising up with guns and challenging every perceived violation is not productive. I don't know what threshold has to be met, and I won't pretend that I do, but there must be a threshold.

CYDdharta

whiteflame said:

@Vaulk

That does clear things up a bit, though I still feel that, if we're talking about an actual absolutist dictatorship (i.e. one where the checks and balances are thrown out and a dictator essentially has complete control over the mechanisms governing our country, which would include the military), we would have to assume that they would use that military to assume some portion of their control over the country. I completely agree that it's a not at all feasible scenario that this kind of thing would ever happen, but when we're talking about a theoretical need to overthrow a tyrannical government, I do think we need to either go big or go home. Frankly, I think all we're discussing here is theoretical scenarios; I'd say you have a lot more to prove if you are going to argue that we're already there. As for them being overwhelmed... I don't know if I really buy that. Perhaps in the long run, depending on how much in the way of actual military incursions must occur, there's a decent chance that that military would be overwhelmed. However, we are talking about a regimented and trained military force, one that really doesn't really need to appear as boots on the ground in cities in order to have its presence felt. Aircraft would be particularly difficult to handle (along with unmanned drones) as would the usage of missiles. If much of the US population organized and if many of those people kept fighting despite the remote destructive efforts of the military, I can imagine a scenario where they eventually bring down said dictator, though the process to get there seems rather destructive. At that point, the military would be eventually cut off from their necessary resources (albeit that will take quite a while). In your more realistic scenario, it doesn't sound like the people owning weapons is bringing down the dictator, but rather the military turning against the dictator is more the effective means of removal.

Air power has NEVER been successful at controlling land areas, that only happens in movies, since you're talking about what you perceive as theoretical scenarios.  You absolutely need boots on the ground.  Perhaps someday, drones will overcome this limitation, but they're a long way away from that at this time.  Then again, if that day ever comes, a new defense against drones may be developed, like crashing cheap commercially available drones into military drones as a new form of guerrilla warfare.

Vaulk

@whiteflame ;

whiteflame said:

@Vaulk

That does clear things up a bit, though I still feel that, if we're talking about an actual absolutist dictatorship (i.e. one where the checks and balances are thrown out and a dictator essentially has complete control over the mechanisms governing our country, which would include the military), we would have to assume that they would use that military to assume some portion of their control over the country. I completely agree that it's a not at all feasible scenario that this kind of thing would ever happen, but when we're talking about a theoretical need to overthrow a tyrannical government, I do think we need to either go big or go home. Frankly, I think all we're discussing here is theoretical scenarios; I'd say you have a lot more to prove if you are going to argue that we're already there. As for them being overwhelmed... I don't know if I really buy that. Perhaps in the long run, depending on how much in the way of actual military incursions must occur, there's a decent chance that that military would be overwhelmed. However, we are talking about a regimented and trained military force, one that really doesn't really need to appear as boots on the ground in cities in order to have its presence felt. Aircraft would be particularly difficult to handle (along with unmanned drones) as would the usage of missiles. If much of the US population organized and if many of those people kept fighting despite the remote destructive efforts of the military, I can imagine a scenario where they eventually bring down said dictator, though the process to get there seems rather destructive. At that point, the military would be eventually cut off from their necessary resources (albeit that will take quite a while). In your more realistic scenario, it doesn't sound like the people owning weapons is bringing down the dictator, but rather the military turning against the dictator is more the effective means of removal.

But, as I say, all of this is theoretical. I believe that the entire discussion we're having about a need to fight back against a tyrannical government is theoretical, particularly when it comes to violent responses, which you've been arguing for.

So, let's get into what we do know from history. You argue that guns were effective against the British in the Revolutionary War. I'd like to point out that the difference between military hardware and personal weapons was far smaller back then. I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the British were sending a force overseas, which made troop movement and maintaining their forces in the colonies rather difficult to manage. But I'm not totally against the point you're making. I think that violence is a necessary tool to resolve many problems. The difficulty I'm having is two-fold. Since I'm not quite clear on the state of tyranny that you're arguing would occur, and particularly since it would be occurring in a country that has checks and balances maintaining a system that doesn't really allow for a dictator to occur, I'm not certain why a protest is doomed to fail in the scenario(s) you're suggesting. If those checks and balances exist, I think that there is strong reason to believe that protest can achieve the desired effect, so long as it encompasses a large enough subset of the population and is sustained. Is it 100% effective? No, but then, neither is violence. Again, without knowing precisely what the circumstances are, I can't say that I can even guess at what violence could accomplish or what the response to that violence would be. Still, if we're going into history, we can get some indications of what might happen. Aside from the basic fact that violence leads to numerous deaths, many dictators have used violence brought on by some subset of their people as justification for responding with violence. They treat them as terrorists or insurgents. Also, to my knowledge, most violent revolutions have led to less than spectacular outcomes for many nations, often involving more death, general governmental disruption, and often the rise of subsequent dictators. I'm not saying that every single revolution is bad, but it seems that the justification for violent revolution requires a rather high threshold because, on their face, violent revolutions tend to cause substantial harm. Engaging in it should be a last resort. I understand that you hold our system to be very sacred and that any violation or series of violations that leads to tyranny should have us on our hackles, but it seems to me that rising up with guns and challenging every perceived violation is not productive. I don't know what threshold has to be met, and I won't pretend that I do, but there must be a threshold.

I agree with you that we'd either need all or nothing on this matter.  I'm of the experienced understanding however, that boots on the ground is absolutely necessary in order to achieve control...certain aircraft might be "Difficult to handle" but that doesn't mean they'd overwhelm the civilian population.  

Also I'd like to clarify that while we've been using the "Dictator" scenario...the most likely version of tyranny that we'd encounter in the U.S. would be Tyranny of the Majority not a Dictatorship.  Understanding that this is mostly theoretical I wanted to clarify that so that we're not necessarily limited to acknowledging tyranny unless it stems from an individual Dictator.  

As to your skepticism regarding the U.S. Military being overwhelmed...I suppose that's reasonable.  I have a background that gives me an in-depth understanding of Military logistics and provides me with the necessary premises to reach the conclusion that essentially...the Military would crumble without the support of the U.S. citizens.  Food, water, medicine, equipment, weapons, ammunition, fuel...the list goes on and on and while the Military does indeed have what you and I would call a "Reserve" of certain logistical supplies...it is extremely finite and would deplete at an alarming rate if the U.S. Military were to actually deploy against the citizens.  Of course this is assuming that they even would.

In reality it likely wouldn't be the U.S. Military that took down a dictator or Tyrant Government.  In the event that it was done by force...it would likely be the Militia called forth by Congress.  The Military would, again, most likely remain dormant during the scenario.  Herein lies the rub because the Militia...IS the people.  You, me, the able bodied 18 year old Men on your street...we are the Militia because we are the people who control what powers the Government has.  Sounds crazy at first but that's the way it's supposed to be.

 I'd like to point out that the difference between military hardware and personal weapons was far smaller back then. 

I'm afraid I'll disagree with you there.  Firstly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that you have a limited understanding of Military hardware and that might be why you think that in today's world our Military are in possession of hardware that we as civilians cannot stand up against.  Secondly, there was actually a larger difference back then between Military and Civilian hardware than today.  In today's United States we can own mortar and artillery equipment as civilians...in 1765 you'd be hard pressed to find a civilian who owned a cannon, mortar or howitzer.  This actually brings me to a great point, I'll try not to make this long winded.

Fixed-Wing Aircraft: Great for destroying strategic targets (Military bases, bunkers) but have no real fighting capabilities vs ground targets (Think guerrilla warfare, not front line high intensity combat).
Rotary-Wing Aircraft: Great for supporting troops on the ground but are extremely susceptible to small arms fire and none but the Apache & Cobra have any armor to speak of that would stop a bullet from a 9mm handgun.  Essentially...you could shoot most of them down with .22 rifles.
Tanks: Amazing at destroying enemy armored vehicles (Other tanks).  American citizens generally don't own armored vehicles so that counts out 90% of what a Tank is designed to do.  Most have secondary weapons but are extremely vulnerable to ground troops as Tanks have very little situational awareness.  
Armored Personnel Carriers: This is where the exception to the rule is.  APCs like the Bradley would excel at killing ground targets and would be very difficult to fight if it weren't for the fact that they can't see through vegetation...at all.  I suppose if you assumed that all fights would be in open fields...sure the Military would always win...unfortunately they're not...hardly ever fought in open fields.
Personal Armaments: Troops have machine guns though...and so do civilians.  Troops have Assault Rifles...kind of...but civilians have actual assault rifles.  Troops have sniper rifles...and so do civilians, only we have more snipers than the Military will ever have.  

The argument that the Military just has more or more powerful or more effective weaponry than we as civilians can stand up to doesn't float.  On the surface..even with my experience and perspective...it sounds like a legitimate argument...but in reality it's just not the case. 

Onto the end.  I agree and I don't actually think that every perceived movement in a direction that might lead to tyranny should be met with a violent action.  What I'm arguing in regards to the topic is "This is why American Citizens shouldn't be disarmed through a weapon's ban".  I argue this because while I don't think that violence should be the default response...without the possibility of violence...the dynamic of the relationship between citizen and government changes drastically.  In most cases though I doubt violence would even be necessary, just the legitimate possibility of violence would be enough to correct the course of a government from stepping out of bounds. 

Let's say, just as a hypothetical, that California truly did make it illegal to perform SOCE.  This would mean that Christian counselors could be legally punished for counseling with the Bible if anyone perceived the lessons against homosexuality as SOCE.  This would open Christians up to a host of lawsuits.  Any LGBT could file a lawsuit against any church for attempting to correct sexual orientation simply by quoting the Bible.  In this event, the Militia could simply gather, march to the California State Legislature, inform them that they are acting outside their scope of duties and responsibilities and place the personnel responsible for the transgression under arrest.  I'll follow up later but I have to run out.

whiteflame

@Vaulk

Rather than continuing to address the hypothetical scenario where a dictator takes control of the US and starts using the military to kill people, I think it's past time we just sidelined this argument. I'll concede that my understanding of the issue is somewhat lacking, though I don't think that the arguments I've made are so off-base as both of you have stated. Nonetheless, I do appreciate both of your insights. However, at the end of the day, we're talking about an extreme hypothetical here, and I don't think it does us much good with regards to the question at hand.

Yes, this is a debate about banning guns, which fundamentally means we're disarming citizens. We've discussed it at length on other threads before, and I think I've already made perfectly clear that I don't support such a ban, though my reasoning is more about immediate practicality. What's been the subject of this discussion since we started having it in this thread is whether or not guns in the hands of the citizenry is a necessary check against a tyrannical government.

And, to be utterly frank, I think it's hard to prove. How do you determine whether the possibility of violence would be an effective means to deter policy choices that would expand on various tyrannies of a majority (I'm using "a" instead of "the" because I have trouble with the concept of a static majority)? Considering that we have a system of checks and balances and there are clear instances where our government has responded to mass protests, nailing down the threat of violence as causative in any changes to American policy (or, for that matter, policy in other nations with any kind of similar system of government) is a difficult prospect. Violence can indeed be coercive, but is it an effective tool in shaping policy?

It seems to me that violence is inherently coercive. It's a portion of the population threatening a majority of the total population (or, at the very least, the government that enforces their wills) to do what they say is morally right or be penalized with injury or death. And the threat has no teeth whatsoever if no one is willing to follow through on it, so these threats have to be backed up by an actual will to use those guns, which means that a will to do violence must be behind every instance where such a threat occurs. 

For that matter, what exactly is a tyranny of a majority? I understand the terminology, but there's a serious question about what constitutes oppression of minority groups, and particularly with the examples you've brought forward, there's a rather large helping of subjectivity thrown into the view that they are oppressive. You point back to SOCE. I'll address the hypothetical momentarily, but I think this is a perfect example of what I'm getting at. Perceived injustices become a basis for violent threats, regardless of how accurate those perceptions are to the reality of what the policy does and regardless of whether they are actually oppressive. Violent threats aren't just limited to instances where there's actually a tyranny of a majority occurring. I accept that in some instances these have occurred and there is reason to believe that they may occur again, but even if I accept that the threat of violence is a reasonable means to combat these policies, that benefit is still tempered by the reality that that same threat of violence can be used to coerce any policy change.

Onto the hypothetical. Assuming that this law does allow for the kinds of legal challenges you're stating would occur (I have doubts about that) and that it did pass (hard to believe given the substantial Christian population in California), there may be sufficient reason for this to be brought to the courts where it could be struck down for being unconstitutional. I don't think a militia is the appropriate response for numerous reasons. One, it's pretty easy for that militia to appear anti-homosexual. Many would characterize the continued usage of Christian conversion therapy as oppressive and discriminatory to homosexuals within that community. Even if the militarized group has other reasons for marching on the legislature, they're going to have a hard time divorcing themselves from anti-homosexual groups that are very likely to support their actions. Two, I tend to be against big unruly mobs appearing outside of legislative houses after a bill is passed simply because they have a problem with it, particularly when their aim is to threaten those legislators with violence and place them under arrest for subjective crimes. Again, not so good for the optics of the crowd that's against said policy. It also doesn't help with any actual process aimed at assessing the law itself since a militia gathering outside a legislative house is far more likely to stay in the news and be the focus of discussion than is the law itself. Doing so seems to function against their aim of fixing the problem because the law will still be on the books. Three, and I've said this before, I don't understand why the militia is necessary to push back on this law. If it's a constitutional issue, why not let the courts handle it? A case like this is almost certain to be brought before them. Courts tend to put a stay on enforcement of a law until it's fully assessed, so even in the short term, there's likely to be no harm from allowing them to take action. I suppose it's not as menacing as the potential for violent reprisal (is it potential when they're showing up at your doorstep with guns to take you away?), and it may lead the legislators to trying this again at some future date, but why isn't the legal process sufficient to address issues like this?

Vaulk

@whiteflame

I'm actually on board with you on most of this.  Look I don't mean to sound as if I think that violence or the threat of violence is the immediate, intermediary or even late resort to solving this type of hypothetical tyranny.  I do absolutely agree that it would be a very last, end of the line, no other choice solution.  I concede that I may have indeed conveyed the idea that it would just happen up front as an immediate response to the passing of a bill that's unconstitutional but I don't honestly think it would go down that way.

The existence of Gun culture and guns in the hands of citizens might be a last line defense against tyranny...but it also provides and up front defense against the idea that "We can still lean in that direction".  The idea that citizens shall be allowed to keep and bear arms was no just to give us a last resort...it was put into place to serve as a passive preventative measure.  

I'd also like to clarify something that I may have conveyed incorrectly.  I don't doubt that a violent uprising of the people would be devastating...not only to the Government but to the people as well.  I fully acknowledge that if we did have to stand up to the government and bring on a full march on the lawmakers, round them up and tear apart some sort of perversion of our legal system...it would inevitably knock the foundation out from under the Government completely and we'd have to essentially start at square one.  This would leave millions of people without the luxuries that they've been depending upon to survive.  WIC, Medicaid, TANF, Welfare, Foodstamps would be gone, grocery stores would likely run out of food in a matter of months after the Farmers/Ranchers lost their Government subsidies for growing crops and raising animals.  It would be horrible...but it would still be a hundred times better than giving up your freedom.  

To your question of how do you determine that violence would be effective ect...ect.  I will admit that you cannot prove that it will be effective.  I can only instead offer you examples of civilizations that had their weapons confiscated and what happened to them afterwards.  Essentially, I can provide relevant precedence of what happens when the possibility of defending your freedom with a Gun is removed completely instead of trying to prove that using violence would successfully deter a government from becoming oppressive.  Especially in today's U.S. where it seems that a large section of leaders want to bring Socialism down on us as if it's ever been a good thing.

And you're correct about the threat having no teeth.  In fact in order to use the threat of violence effectively...you'd have to establish a solid precedence first. Other nations believe that the threat of Nuclear war is a serious consideration when tangling with the U.S. and the reason they have that fear is because of what we did to Japan.  Precedence is powerful. So...yes, we'd have to do more than just threaten people in the event that we needed to rise up against tyranny.

To answer your question of "What is Tyranny of the Majority": 


Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, and Dictatorships: According to the CIA World Fact Book. 
Authoritarian – a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens’ lives. T
Totalitarian is a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population. 
Dictatorship – a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws). In other words, the term “Authoritarian Totalitarian Dictatorship” works well to describe most despotic and/or tyrannical government forms. With that mind authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorship, despotism, and tyranny all have slightly different connotations (despite speaking to the same general concept of tyranny).

In any of these cases, a Tyrant is merely the leader of each.  In the case you're asking about, Tyranny of the Majority would be a Socialist Democracy which, depending on your viewpoint would just be a socialism.  You don't need a dictatorship in order to have a Tyrant present.  If California began controlling values and beliefs of its population, the Governor of California would be seen as a Tyrant because he/she leads the California Government.  In this case, Tyranny would be present regardless of severity and a Tyrant would be overall responsible for it whether they caused it themselves or merely allowed it to happen through inaction though they were duty bound to prevent.

Here's a perfect example of Democratic tyranny, and (Mind blow) it's from CNN so you know it can't be biased right?  Also here you'll see the second case of socialized medicine condemning babies to death against the consent of the Parents.  It goes like this:

Doctor: So your child is terminally ill and we think he/she should just go ahead and die.
Parents: But we don't want to give up, there's still a chance he/she could pull through.
Doctor: Yea we don't care, we've already made the decision.
Parents: Well we won't let you.
U.K. High Court: We're allowing the Hospital to terminate life support regardless of what you want.
Parents: But we found a Doctor in the U.S. that's giving our child a chance to recover.
U.K High Court: We don't care, we think it's just best that the Child dies.

If you think that there's no way that the U.S. could ever get that way...then you're probably talking about the fact that the U.S. citizen population is armed and wouldn't let the Government take that kind of power.  Meanwhile in the U.K.



Here you go, this is a prime example of what would happen if a Government were free to decide what kind of power it's supposed to have.

whiteflame

@Vaulk

Yeah, some of these previous posts have made it look like a more immediate option that should be taken advantage of. Good to know that we're both of the same mind on the actual use or directed threat of violent reprisal, though I'll get to some of the differences shortly.

I'm not sure that guns in the hands of citizens suffice as a last line of defense against tyranny, nor am I certain that a world in which such a tyranny is torn down by internal strife is better than one in which other means are used, though I'll concede that point as there are a plethora of unknowns when it comes to what that tyranny looks like, is willing to do, and has the capability to continue doing. So, we focus on the present/immediate/likely future. 

And this is where lines like "it also provides and up front defense against the idea that 'We can still lean in that direction'" are concerning to me. What does leaning in a direction look like? What direction are we talking about (I noticed that you seem to think it's left)? How far do we have to lean? What needs to be the response to said leaning? While I'm sure you'd get agreement from many that this is a basis for response, I can practically guarantee that many of those same people who agree would disagree about the answers to these questions. In your case, you bring up instances where a government has allowed the abridgment of individual rights. How many of these does there have to be before citizens take up arms, or at least issue a threat of reprisal? It seems to me that if you have a population that is rather broad in their views on when that kind of response should be activated, you're going to have some problems. Regardless of where you personally choose to set the line, the fact that others would set it differently and thus respond to instances of perceived tyranny of a majority in ways that would probably exceed what we would deem to be reasonable. And you admit straight up that these people would have to demonstrate their willingness to exact that violence in order to show that their threats actually have teeth. Even if there is some deterrent effect on tyrannical policies or actions within the US as a result of guns, this will always check back that benefit.

However, I'm still not convinced that guns in the hands of citizens have had a deterrent effect on certain policy types. I'd say that, in pretty much every instance I can think of, the rule of law in the US (particularly the Constitution and Bill of Rights) play a significantly stronger role. As you've suggested, I don't think it's possible to show that any law passed or not passed in the US has been directed chiefly or solely by the underlying threat of violent reprisal from the general population, yet it seems like a lot of your argument relies on that being the case. The historical analysis of civilizations that have confiscated their citizens' weapons is not particularly convincing on this front for a number of reasons, but if I had to put my finger on the biggest issue I have with it, it's that each one takes it out of the context of the US. Every time you do that, you encounter a wide degree of other variables. If you want to talk about specific examples, we can get into each one, but a lot of them include governments that already had a dictator in place with virtually no checks on their rule. I'll get into more modern examples like England on your specific links, but placing the blame for a complete descent into tyranny on the loss of guns seems to massively oversimplify the problems that these people faced.

I still feel like I'm not getting a clear idea of when a country becomes one that is imposing a tyranny of a majority. You've provided me with a few definitions, but I think we've already both made clear that we're talking about the government we have now changing in more subtle ways. They may fit some of these definitions, but only loosely at best, otherwise we'd be talking about major shifts in policy directions. My impression was that your usage of "Tyranny of the Majority" was with regards to a majority in this country engaging in a policy that would, in some way, subjugate or oppress some minority or set of minorities. Again, you're rather quick to point to socialism, but I think it's important to divorce this issue from political sides (one of the issues I have with "leaning" as a basis for determining what is a transgression). Any group can be part of a majority. Any group can participate in policies that disenfranchise or otherwise oppress minorities that exist outside of that majority. I know you don't need a dictator (though I would argue that if a governor started enacting laws that went against the basic fabric of our country without response from the federal government, they would effectively be functioning as a dictator), but you also don't require a static majority, nor for it to represent a single political ideology. Tyranny of a majority seems, at least to me, to be entirely separate from a dictatorship in that it's a flaw inherent to a democratic system: a majority of the population directs policy much more so than does a minority of that same population. A government allowing that majority to impose oppressive measures on a minority or set of minorities would indeed be responsible for that imposition, though I'd say that government only becomes a tyranny if it enforces them. 

But I'd still say that drawing the line between what constitutes oppression and what doesn't is the greater issue when it comes to defining what is a tyranny of a majority and what is not. Not every perceived injustice is actually oppression occurring. Not every instance in which personal rights are abridged should be treated as oppression. I don't think we can just say that we'll know it when we see it because, frankly, there's a lot of subjectivity to everyone's view of what constitutes a clear case of oppression and what does not. Whose views should matter most? The reality is that anyone with a gun can seek to impose their views on this issue. The vast, vast majority of people do not, and I'm not suggesting that they will suddenly flip on a dime, but it's worthy of at least some concern that this subjectivity can (and, I would argue, has) led some people to take action against laws they deem oppressive.

Lastly, onto the British examples. Again, I don't see how you're providing evidence that the US hasn't implemented this kind of policy (i.e. one that allows doctors to decide when patients should be taken off of life support) chiefly or solely because "the U.S. citizen population is armed". I think that's a stretch. This is actually one instance where blaming it on socialized medicine might be somewhat accurate because more power over your health care is placed in governmental hands, even if you're willing to pay to send your child somewhere else. Frankly, that kind of power doesn't exist in the US, and I don't think it will so long as there is no system of universal health care. Truth be told, I don't think even the system of universal health care is directly to blame, but rather a decision to empower doctors with life or death decisions, which goes beyond what any system should automatically provide. However, it's much harder to afford that kind of power to doctors under a private health care system. I think there's reasonable arguments to be had for that system being better on the whole for health care, but that's not relevant to this discussion. If we assume that these are clear examples of oppression imposed by doctors with government support, then the question is, would things have been different if guns were not banned in the UK? I have a hard time believing that people being armed would have substantially altered how things shook out in these two cases.

AmericanFurryBoy

Guns are not the problem. Our failing school and mental health systems are.

Vaulk

Not sure how this happened ^

@whiteflame

 Phew, but well said.

I can see how I lead off strongly with impressions of my view being more immediate than last resort and my apologies for that.  

Answer time:

1. What does leaning in a direction look like?
Answer: In this case I'm referring specifically to proposals.  Instead directly acting to overtly oppress established freedoms and rights of the people, tyrants would merely propose these actions albeit indirectly.  Hypothetical example: U.S. Lawmakers propose the establishment of new legal statutes that allow the department of homeland security to outright confiscate firearms from citizens who have been identified as having a mental disorder.  This sounds fairly sensible so long as you fail to consider the possibility that mental disorders are classified by medical professionals who happen to stand separate from U.S. Law enforcement agencies and there's substantial precedence of arbitrary medical classifications throughout history.  Case in point would be gender dysphoria...what we call transgender today, this could be a legitimate justification for confiscation of a person's firearms and right to bear them.  Or how about PTSD?  Family history of bi-polar diagnosis?  How about ADHD?  Who would decide what meets the criteria?  Where would the lines be drawn and could the Government be trusted with 100% of the power and authority to decide the answer to these questions?

2. What direction are we talking about?
Answer: The direction a Government with intent to oppress would need move in order to set in motion a plan to eventually strip freedom and rights of the people.  Towards a Socialist/Communist Government or Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism/Dictatorship.

3. How far do we have to lean?
Answer: Presuming you mean how far do we have to lean towards tyranny in order to justify a violent reaction from the people...in all honesty it would have to be really far...ridiculously far.  I'd say with a great deal of certainty that you wouldn't seen a major organized violent uprising of the people until the Government started murdering people.  Historically speaking I think we have enough examples to set that bar fairly accurately.

4. What needs to be the response to said leaning?
Answer: In my opinion it needs to be shamed and cast down for what it is.  Today's examples of leaning are when people like Bernie Sanders tells America that everyone has a right to healthcare.  This equates to "Someone can be forced to provide a service to you against their will" and while it might seem innocent...the fundamental ideology here does not align with the pillars of the United States.  

Onto your suggestion of differentiating opinion on uprising criteria.  Undoubtedly you are correct, there would almost certainly be dissent among the people regardless of how bad the U.S. fell into tyranny in our hypothetical situation.  I'd venture as far as to say that you'd never get more than 20% of the population to agree to rise up against the Government in any organized fashion in the event that (For example) the Government began committing Genocide or ethnic cleansing.  This is mostly because of fear and the likelihood that this would've occurred gradually over the course of a great deal of time...essentially desensitizing people to the issue.  Look back to Martin Luther King Jr., here comes a Man who stands up to the Government and begins to rally the people suffering from systemic oppression at all levels and teaches them that they deserve better.  MLK first put doubt into people's minds, doubt turned into hope, hope turned into determination, determination turned into conviction.  This is likely what would have to happen in the event that the Government began oppressing the people...the difference being MLK intentionally used violence by inciting it against himself and his people, in our hypothetical we would be using violence by bringing it upon the Government.

Onto your point of being unconvinced that threat of violence or the actual use of it not being as effective as the rule of law; and to the point that foreign examples are not legitimate comparisons: You are correct.  Currently there stands no example in the United States where violence or the threat of violence took the place of the rule of law and went down in history as the day that the people had to be violent with their Government...it has never happened.  And you are correct that using foreign countries as an example is technically an unfair comparison for any hundreds of reasons.  The impasse we're coming to is that whenever someone suggests a solution to a hypothetical problem...during the evaluation of said solution one must consider comparisons such as "Has this ever worked before"?  However, in the event that no such precedent exists one may also take into consideration examples of the absence of the solution as in "Has the absence of this ever caused a problem before"?  Now we'd have to ask "Can you look at another country that's missing this variable and determine with any degree of certainty that its absence is the cause of a problem"?  The simple answer is"I don't know".  The complex answer in short form is "I can establish the air of reality, reasonable suspicion, probable cause and preponderance of the evidence...but I cannot reach clear and convincing evidence or go beyond reasonable doubt". 

I still feel like I'm not getting a clear idea of when a country becomes one that is imposing a tyranny of a majority.
Answer: Fair enough, how about this: Recently in Canada the Government took into consideration that it might be in the best interest of its people that they put into law a code that would require (Under punishment of law) every Canadian citizen to utilize, in speech, writing and otherwise, the preferred pronouns of each person in regards to their sexual orientation.  This is a real thing.  I don't recall if it ever passed and I honestly don't care but this could be an example of Tyranny of the Majority.  If 51% or more of the population agreed that this was a good thing and as a result the Government passed this law then this would be tyranny of the majority.  The reason it fits the qualification is because this would have (And I don't know that it didn't already) eliminated Canada's freedom of speech and punished those who even dared to mention that they disagreed with the idea of numerous genders.  Identity politics in punitive form...this would be tyranny.  France is currently living under Tyranny of the majority as people are being arrested for posting comments on facebook such as "He got what he deserved" in regards to someone being murdered.  Another example of Tyranny of the Majority.  

Tyranny of a majority seems, at least to me, to be entirely separate from a dictatorship in that it's a flaw inherent to a democratic system: a majority of the population directs policy much more so than does a minority of that same population. A government allowing that majority to impose oppressive measures on a minority or set of minorities would indeed be responsible for that imposition, though I'd say that government only becomes a tyranny if it enforces them. 

I might have already linked that once before but it's a pretty good breakdown of the different types of tyranny.  And you're right, tyranny does not necessitate a dictator or dictatorship.  If tyranny is present then whomever is ultimately responsible for it is the tyrant...not necessarily a dictator but in many cases happens to be both.

Consider Authoritarianism where the state imposes its will on various aspects of the Citizens' lives.  An example of this would be China's Communist Party.  Then there's totalitarianism where the Government reaches deep and controls the attitudes, values and beliefs of the citizens.  North Korea fits the bill here.  I'm not attempting to pin any one singular example of tyranny down here because with the rise of an experimental nation comes unique and original possibilities of tyranny.

Lastly, and I think this is probably the singular hard disagreement here.  Your summary of my example is completely and totally wrong but only because of context.  

Again, I don't see how you're providing evidence that the US hasn't implemented this kind of policy (i.e. one that allows doctors to decide when patients should be taken off of life support) chiefly or solely because "the U.S. citizen population is armed". I think that's a stretch. 

A doctor deciding when a patient should be taken off of life support in the United States happens when and ONLY when there is no guardian/medical power of attorney/next of kin.  Courts in the United States have and regularly do assign control to Medical Facilities to make decisions against the wishes of Family in regards to treatment options but the Courts have not and do not make decisions in regards to terminating life support...they can only decide which Family member receives the power to decide.  

This is fundamentally incomparable to the U.K. where Parents have and currently are struggling to keep their Children on life support against the decision of a Doctor and then the highest court in the Country who are taking it upon themselves to decide that the Child simply isn't worth keeping alive.  I still contend that this is quite possibly the most relevant example of true tyranny in today's modern world.  One could find more egregious examples in worse places but the U.K. is far from uncivilized and is not so dissimilar from the U.S. in regards to Western principles...yet they're still dealing with this type of tyranny.  The Government has reached deeply into the lives of the Citizens and has taken control over the most painful decision parents are required to make.  In this particular case I would say with a great deal of certainty that those people are well beyond any recourse under the laws of the land and the first step in correcting the issue is to recognize just how bad things must've become in order for that level of power to have been taken by the Government.  Next a leader must step forward to rally the people into a common ideology and ultimately into the conviction that the Government has become too powerful.  Whether or not it ends in violence will depend upon too many circumstances and variables to count but in this hypothetical situation I would say that I wouldn't personally look down on it if it did.  Trying to comprehend the kind of devastating blow it must've been to fight for the life of your Child only to have it stripped by your own Government makes for an interesting perspective if you were to stand behind the glass and watch as a group of people brought swift retribution upon those that were guilty.  

In any case, the laws regarding the issue of termination of life support in the United States are lengthy to say the least and I could link the entire legal code but suffice to say that after speaking with the Association for Conflict Resolution over the phone I'm certain of the fact that, aside from religious based Hospitals and very specific circumstances, there is no Doctor in the United States that can decide against the wishes of parents to remove life support from their child...it's simply not legal.  Doctors can refuse to give certain treatments for example: If your child falls into a coma as a result of cancer and the cancer is deemed inoperable...the Doctor can and in many cases will refuse to give chemotherapy to the child if they believe that it won't help and will only likely cause unnecessary pain to the Child.  This is completely different though from refusing to honor the wishes of the parent in keeping the Child on life support and instead decided to pull the plug.

whiteflame

I think I’m getting a better picture of your point now, so I think we’re mostly good on the clarifications. I think these are certainly more reasonable than the picture I was getting from previous posts, and I think in many ways, we’re on the same page as to how governmental tyrannies can occur, though I should note that the examples we’re going through aren’t so much tyrannies of a majority. They seem more like expanding on what a law allows beyond the point that it is reasonable. It’s still tyranny in a sense because they are effectively reducing essential rights, but it doesn’t necessarily have the support of a majority. Some of your examples do, but I’d just like to point out that the issues you’re presenting move well beyond tyrannies of a majority.

I suppose my biggest remaining problem with this part of the argument is this: what is a severe enough infringement on personal rights to be called a tyranny, and can the benefits of a such a reduction justify that infringement sufficiently to have it be treated as non-tyrannical? What I’m getting at is that the loss of personal rights, by itself, is not what I would consider to be tyrannical, particularly if the purpose of doing so is sufficiently justified. We can bring up some examples that certainly show when you’ve gone well past the line, but establishing where the line starts seems like a subjective enterprise.

Beyond that, it seems like you’re generally agreeing with me that, even if we accept that weapons do need to be in the hands of citizens to counter a tyrannical government, that doing so should only occur when the government has gone very far over that line, i.e. as a last resort or near last resort. I think that’s a point of agreement. I’m not entirely sure that, should we reach the point that the government is actively killing its own people, guns are going to effectively check that power. However, the ability of citizens to fight back against that kind of tyranny is an important one, so I think we can both accept that. It also seems like we’re agreed that shaming a government that is engaging in tyrannical policies is a reasonable response. We might disagree on what crosses the line into territory requiring its characterization as tyrannical, but I think we agree that that response does need to occur, at least in some instances.

I really don’t think we’re having any hard disagreement, even on the UK case, since I think it’s pretty clear that we both recognize that the legal system empowers doctors (and I agree, judges as well) to make decisions that fundamentally go against the will of the legal guardians, even if they’re willing to transfer them to a new hospital. I actually agree with your characterization that the difference is between a doctor’s choice not to treat (in the US) and a doctor’s/judge’s decision to end that life (in the UK). That seems inherently problematic to me, and it’s something that they should change.

I agree with you that the main source of our disagreement is really on how guns affect the willingness of governments to pass/enforce tyrannical policies, but from the sound of it, this seems like a point on which we’ll have to agree to disagree. From what I’m seeing in your arguments, there’s a correlation between the establishment of strong dictatorships and the removal of guns. The example of the UK stands (as far as I can tell) as the only outlier where a government has taken actions that, I would agree, present as tyrannical in the absence of a powerful dictatorship while guns are banned. The problem I have is that there are just so many other factors that explain the continued passage/enforcement of tyrannical policies under these governments. Maybe a broad ownership of guns would have altered how these governments proceeded, but establishing how it would have changed them is a much more difficult prospect, particularly if we establish that everyone should only be clearly threatening with those guns as a measure against the most damaging of transgressions. Maybe a government is just scared enough by the prospect of violent reprisal that it won’t pass such laws, but to do that, the government would have to buy that they would follow through on those threats, that a considerable number would do so, and that the threat of those weapons is significant enough to alter course. Perhaps some of these tyrannies would have met these thresholds. Perhaps not. We’re playing the alternate history game, and that has a lot of “what if’s,” so it becomes rather difficult to manage.

Vaulk

@whiteflame

Truth.

In this case I'm simply FOR a more conservative approach to maintaining the fundamental principles of our Nation due to the fact that, as we've already agreed upon, ours is very unique and there's simply not much reference material to help us understand "What would happen if".  And I agree, there's no way to know with any degree of certainty that the disarming of U.K. citizens is the cause of their government taking such liberties with the freedom of their people.

Either way I'm satisfied and enjoyed the back and forth.  You're a formidable debate opponent and have much more tact than I'm capable of I admit.  Good discussion all around.

LukePhillips

Here is the thing. The 2nd Amendment was created to protect our 1st Amendment rights from government tyranny. (Look at the federalist papers). The problem is that liberals want to shut conservatives up (Look at college campuses) and take away our 1st amendment right. Ironically they still want their 1st amendment rights so its really selective. Sounds like North Korea class censorship to me. Anyways. They want to take away our 1st amendment rights. The 2nd amendment is to stop the government from taking away our 1st amendment rights. So the way you take away 1st amendment rights is to take away 2nd amendment rights 1st and to acheive this take every shooting or mass shooting and make it as nuclear war is coming. @tararara

KnockedCloth318

I believe that guns should not be banned from U.S. citizens because many law-abiding citizens who own guns, use them for only self defense or sport, for example hunting. If guns were banned to citizens then the United States would plummet into a political crisis. Also many people can obtain guns through black market deals so this would not change anything for those who are willing to do something bad. 

MayCaesar

I do not find the argument "This item can be used for malicious purposes, hence it should be banned" practically sound. Continuing this argument logically, we will come to the conclusion that everything should be banned, because everything can be used with malicious intent. For example, cars have been known to be used in terrorist attacks, leading to some of the biggest casualty counts - but banning all cars would not be very reasonable.

Instead of blaming the tool for the misdeeds and trying to restrict/prohibit its use, it is more reasonable to look at the source of its use, in case of firearm attacks - the shooters. What was going on in their life that led them to conclude that the best course of action is to take a firearm and to go on a killing spree? Could it have been prevented? If so, then how? Perhaps one of the problems was that their economical, social or psychological issues were not addressed by the society and, seeing no support, they resorted to the most desperate act? If this is the case, then it should be analyzed how the societal response to personal issues can be improved.

Removing the tool never solves the problem. Removing the factors that lead to misuse of the tool does.

Nathaniel_B

I am a registered, responsible gun owner. So are you gonna take my gun because of some school shooters goin around killing people?

Agility_Dude

The majority of school shootings can be stopped if we have better background checks and regulations for safer storage of firearms. This is not that hard and we don't have to ban any firearms at all. Defensive use of guns is a valid reason to allow citizens to carry firearms.

Applesauce

removing a right, in this case the one in the #2 spot is no small task and shouldn't be.  What could be the unintended consequences of travelling down that road?  Do you really want to find out?  While we are at it, which other rights should also be repealed or diminished?  The #1 with hate speech laws perhaps?  Do we also ban knives like the U.K.?  Is there some kind of laundry list of things to ban?  Where does it end?

MayCaesar

Guns turns out to be far from the only tool one can use for mass murder. Recently vehicle assaults have been popularized by terrorists, where someone drives a rented truck into a crowd. Yet banning all vehicles would be... counterproductive, would it not? Even though far more people die on roads, than in all shootings combined.

One could say that vehicles also serve a useful function when driven by civilians, while guns do not... But that is also not entirely true (there are situations in which having a gun can save one's life, even if those situations almost never occur), and that still does not address the point that removing a tool, rather than removing the causes of its misuse, is not very reasonable.