39 votes

Should leftists in the US be armed?

I recently heard something that I didn’t like. It was about the growth of fascism in the US, and it said something that I was uncomfortable hearing; ignoring it is the same as acceptance.

I am not subscribed to ~society. I was automatically added when it was created but I quickly noped out. I had already lowered my news consumption to a minimum before Trump won the election, but after I have actively avoided even those few programs that I thought were good. I didn’t have the will to hear about the terrible things on the horizon.

So now I am thinking about what I should do, and right now the thing that seems like the most concrete action is to buy a gun.

Honestly, though, I hate guns. I’ve done a shooting range a few times when I was a kid and I guess they were kind of fun but the idea of using it against people sickens me. On the other hand, we are living in an age where police forces are paramilitarized, the president can and will use CBP as a military force within the US border, and our civil rights are being pried apart.

But what would I actually do with a gun? What difference will it actually make? Bring part of deadly violence is the last thing that I want.

88 comments

  1. [11]
    nukeman
    (edited )
    Link
    As Tildes’ resident gun nut, this is more of an “if you decide to get a firearm”: Remember the four rules of gun safety: a) Treat all guns as if they are loaded b) Never point the muzzle at...

    As Tildes’ resident gun nut, this is more of an “if you decide to get a firearm”:

    1. Remember the four rules of gun safety:
      a) Treat all guns as if they are loaded
      b) Never point the muzzle at anything you are unwilling to destroy
      c) Finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
      d) Know what your target is and what is behind it
    2. Practice practice practice. Do not buy a firearm and stuff it in a closet. Try to go to the range frequently.
    3. What start are you in? If the answer is California or New York (or similar), your options will be a lot more limited, and you will be restricted in terms of magazine size.
    4. Decide what kind of firearm you want to purchase. Try out a couple to see how they feel in your hand, how the recoil (or “kick”) is, etc:

    a) Shotgun: Cheap, less legal restrictions, traditionally considered to have a lot of stopping power. But long, awkward to use in small spaces, limited magazine capacity (typically 8+1 rounds or less for a pump action), slow to reload, recoil can be punishing. Common recommendation: Mossberg 500

    b) Rifle (in this case, an AR-15 type rifle): Maneuverable, modular, good standard capacity (typically 30+1 rounds), easily controllable by a new shooter, easy to reload. But; pricier, more legal restrictions, need to watch for overpenetration, not as compact as a handgun. Common recommendations: Ruger AR-556, Smith & Wesson M&P15

    c) Handgun: Compact, maneuverable, wide selection, relatively inexpensive, easier to store, can conceal carry. But; recoil can be sharp/snappy, more legal restrictions than a shotgun, less effective at long ranges. Common recommendation: Glock, Ruger LCP

    1. Find a way to secure it. Highly recommend https://gunsafereviewsguy.com, most “gun safes” aren’t really safes, and real ones are very expensive. Go with something like a Fort Knox Box for secure storage if you can’t afford a true safe, and store ammo away from the firearm.
    2. Go to the range and practice more.
    38 votes
    1. [10]
      chocobean
      Link Parent
      Tangential: I live in a quite rural area where there are no real option for vets if there is a dire emergency for my pet geese. What kind of gun should I get if there is nothing else I can do for...

      Tangential: I live in a quite rural area where there are no real option for vets if there is a dire emergency for my pet geese. What kind of gun should I get if there is nothing else I can do for a gravely injured birb?

      On topic:

      My Acadian neighbuors have guns for hunting and they have a long standing anti establishment streak somewhere in their roots. We don't have guns, but perhaps the next best thing is to befriend neighbours with guns.

      6 votes
      1. [7]
        steezyaspie
        Link Parent
        Slaughtering your own livestock is not going to be for the faint of heart, and animals you consider pets will be worse, but if you’re serious I’ve seen people on some homesteading/farming forums...

        Slaughtering your own livestock is not going to be for the faint of heart, and animals you consider pets will be worse, but if you’re serious I’ve seen people on some homesteading/farming forums recommend using a .22 for this. You’ll want to find a place sufficiently away from the rest of your animals, if at all possible.

        You may want to consider just asking your neighbors for help, if you’re on good terms with them.

        10 votes
        1. [4]
          tanglisha
          Link Parent
          I took the parent post completely differently than you did. I thought they wanted to defend the geese against something like coyotes.

          I took the parent post completely differently than you did. I thought they wanted to defend the geese against something like coyotes.

          3 votes
          1. [3]
            chocobean
            Link Parent
            Ahh....yes actually I did mean euthanasia. It hasn't occured to me until your post that I could be using firearms to defend them....I guess that's how fish out of water we are in rural country,...

            Ahh....yes actually I did mean euthanasia. It hasn't occured to me until your post that I could be using firearms to defend them....I guess that's how fish out of water we are in rural country, and how much of a pacifist I still am. It's been a privilege to live in this area: in all this time I have not seen one coyote in the yard/woods. Nor have any deer come to eat my garden -- they just occasionally show up as packs of frozen meat from neighbours :p

            1. [2]
              tanglisha
              Link Parent
              Interesting place you have. I know someone who lives in the city limits of Minneapolis, they get deer and wild turkeys in their yard all the time. I live just outside a different city, we get...

              Interesting place you have. I know someone who lives in the city limits of Minneapolis, they get deer and wild turkeys in their yard all the time. I live just outside a different city, we get hawks, eagles, and coyotes. I definitely have indoor cats.

              1 vote
              1. chocobean
                Link Parent
                The animals definitely exist in the wider area for sure, but I've just never seen them or even snow tracks, in the half acre yard proper, always only in the back woods and not even that often....

                The animals definitely exist in the wider area for sure, but I've just never seen them or even snow tracks, in the half acre yard proper, always only in the back woods and not even that often. They're shy of the immediate acres I think, for likely historic reasons. For raptors, we have ospreys, bald eagles, and some kind of tiny guy, possibly Sharp-shinned Hawk

                1 vote
        2. [2]
          chocobean
          Link Parent
          Good note about being very far away from the flock. Because accidental injury to other birds, or because it scares the rest of them? Either way it would be a last resort and not what I want them...

          Good note about being very far away from the flock. Because accidental injury to other birds, or because it scares the rest of them? Either way it would be a last resort and not what I want them to see....

          And yeah asking neighbors might be the easiest thing to do....

          1. steezyaspie
            Link Parent
            Well, both really. Definitely needs to be a safe location, but you also don’t want to do it where the others can see you. It sounds like you have good neighbors (any neighbors that give you...

            Well, both really. Definitely needs to be a safe location, but you also don’t want to do it where the others can see you.

            It sounds like you have good neighbors (any neighbors that give you venison are probably good!), it seems likely they’d be willing and able to help you if you ever had to put down one of your geese.

            If you are inclined to learn how to shoot and will practice, then I’m not trying to dissuade you by any means. However, if you’d have it solely for the rare scenario where you need to put down a pet humanely, it’s very unlikely you’re going to be comfortable doing it safely when you’re under that kind of stress.

            2 votes
      2. [2]
        nukeman
        Link Parent
        Ironically, I’m vegan (I know, shocking, a vegan gun nut!), so no hunting experience. But I did come across this SOP from McGill on avian euthanasia which confirmed what my hunch was; to use a...

        Ironically, I’m vegan (I know, shocking, a vegan gun nut!), so no hunting experience. But I did come across this SOP from McGill on avian euthanasia which confirmed what my hunch was; to use a shotgun. If you are small-framed, you can purchase a 20 or 28 gauge (versus the standard 12 gauge). Target the head with birdshot to ensure a rapid death. The documents I linked detailed other methods you can use if necessary.

        And yes, befriending neighbors is generally a good option. They may even be willing to teach y’all how to shoot.

        8 votes
        1. chocobean
          Link Parent
          Thank you for the articles. They're making me cry reading but yeah, thank you, give me enough information to talk to my hunting shop guy, especially the note about being smaller framed.

          Thank you for the articles. They're making me cry reading but yeah, thank you, give me enough information to talk to my hunting shop guy, especially the note about being smaller framed.

          3 votes
  2. [27]
    stu2b50
    Link
    Exactly, studies have shown that owning guns just makes it more like you die from gun related violence. What exactly are you going to do, untrained, with a peashooter, against the US military, in...

    But what would I actually do with a gun? What difference will it actually make? Bring part of deadly violence is the last thing that I want.

    Exactly, studies have shown that owning guns just makes it more like you die from gun related violence. What exactly are you going to do, untrained, with a peashooter, against the US military, in this doomsday hypothetical?

    If you're really, truly worried about this situation, a better investment would be to start training in running - it'll do you a lot more good than the gun. And healthier, to boot.

    I honestly think it's very concerning how much spaces closer to the far left are promoting gun ownership. Especially since the ones who'd follow that advice are more likely to be, uh, having a hard time, and prone to catastrophizing. We know that, for people liable for depression, the MOST likely target of their gun by a longshot is themselves.

    32 votes
    1. nukeman
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      A lot of that is statistical though. A gun doesn’t magically make you kill yourself or die. The risk comes from: Publicly flaunting having firearms, Living in a rough neighborhood (where there is...

      Exactly, studies have shown that owning guns just makes it more like you die from gun related violence. What exactly are you going to do, untrained, with a peashooter, against the US military, in this doomsday hypothetical?

      A lot of that is statistical though. A gun doesn’t magically make you kill yourself or die. The risk comes from:

      1. Publicly flaunting having firearms,
      2. Living in a rough neighborhood (where there is a high chance of having your house broken into anyway), and/or
      3. You or a family member having a mental health issue.

      Not doing (1) goes a long way. Not falling into (3) also helps. And (2) is one reason you’d have the gun in the first place. Realistically, if you aren’t mentally ill and aren’t a complete idiot with your guns, the risk goes down significantly.

      And as far as the against the military, you operate as any insurgency does. The military will still require personnel on the ground, going door to door, operating drones, etc. These folks are still going to be vulnerable to small arms, especially when there is a rifle behind every blade of grass.

      47 votes
    2. [10]
      kru
      Link Parent
      Insurgent tactics have proven very effective against superior occupying forces, which includes the US military. I think, when people in a minority are asking about buying a gun, they're really...

      What exactly are you going to do, untrained, with a peashooter, against the US military, in this doomsday hypothetical?

      Insurgent tactics have proven very effective against superior occupying forces, which includes the US military.

      I think, when people in a minority are asking about buying a gun, they're really asking one of two things: Am I going to be attacked directly, and have a sudden need to defend myself, and/or am I going to find myself as part of an insurgent resistance?

      Unfortunately, I can't offer any thoughts or guidance about either of these. Two decades ago I'd have answered both of those proxy questions with "most assuredly not," but now my response is "I hope not, but maybe."

      34 votes
      1. [9]
        papasquat
        Link Parent
        Honestly, this line of reasoning gets a little over the top and starts being stretched to ridiculousness, but in my opinion, the reason for gun ownership to protect against tyranny is already a...
        • Exemplary

        Honestly, this line of reasoning gets a little over the top and starts being stretched to ridiculousness, but in my opinion, the reason for gun ownership to protect against tyranny is already a ridiculous starting point, so it needs to be addressed by taking it to its logical conclusion.

        If you want to potentially violently resist the government, there are a lot of really hard questions you need to ask yourself first, and "should I buy a gun" is probably the easiest and least important one.

        In this scenario, you're living as an insurgent, so the obvious question to ask is "am I willing to live as an insurgent?" That is, are you willing to spend years or decades living in austere environments, in caves or holes, drenched in water, or completely devoid of it, with no regular access to food or medical treatment? Are you willing to never see your family again? Are you willing for them to potentially pay for the price of you becoming what this theoretical government would classify as a terrorist? Are you willing to, in all likelyhood, meet an untimely death that has a very high chance of being horrific? If you're not willing to do those things, and most people; myself included, aren't, "resisting the government" shouldn't even be on your list of reasons you want to have a gun.

        Sure, you could have a pointless standoff which ends with getting killed by police, but that's just suicide with extra steps. Basically no one escapes the police by shooting them.

        If you do feel like these are things you'd be willing to do if things got to be that point, whether you have a gun or not is not really a massive factor anyway. Insurgents sometimes, but usually don't supply their own weapons when they join an insurgency.

        Any large scale insurgency has foreign benefactors that will happily supply you with military grade weaponry to aid you in overthrowing their rivals. The United States has done it for centuries in South America, the Middle East, and Africa. Russia and China do in various places as well. If there were ever a large scale US insurgency, spending on the specifics, various countries would absolutely be overtly or covertly supplying materiel to the insurgents, the only question would be which country will the weapon you get issued come from.

        So overall, it's a pretty weak, if not totally bogus basis for gun ownership.

        If you want one for personal protection from criminals, that's probably a more valid reason.

        36 votes
        1. [2]
          gpl
          Link Parent
          I do not personally support gun ownership for the sake of resisting tyranny in the US. That being said, it does seem true that small arms have been a vital resource for both insurgencies and...

          I do not personally support gun ownership for the sake of resisting tyranny in the US. That being said, it does seem true that small arms have been a vital resource for both insurgencies and resistance movements throughout history, except that they usually have to obtain those arms through external benefactors as you point out. But, for example, the French resistance in WWII certainly made use of small arms without having military grade weaponry like tanks or planes. I think the biggest ‘advantage’, to the extent there is some at all, is that a well armed populace makes it harder for actual government tyranny to take hold than it would otherwise. The government may be ever so marginally less likely to, e.g. violently put down a protest if substantial portions therein are armed. Individual members of the military or secret police may be more resistant to conducting raids if there is a good chance they’re walking into gunfire, than they would be otherwise.

          (Given the high rates of gun death in the US, I do not think any of the above hypotheticals are justification for the lack of regulation surrounding guns though)

          13 votes
          1. papasquat
            Link Parent
            That's extremely arguable. Yes, it costs more resources to quell an armed rebellion than an unarmed one, but that starts with the supposition that most people would rebel under a tyrannical...

            a well armed populace makes it harder for actual government tyranny to take hold than it would otherwise.

            That's extremely arguable. Yes, it costs more resources to quell an armed rebellion than an unarmed one, but that starts with the supposition that most people would rebel under a tyrannical government, and that's never been the case anywhere.

            Its just as likely that police shooting deaths by radicals are exactly the pretext the government in question has been hoping for to use as justification for more power consolidation.

            "We need more centralized power! The streets are in mayhem, police are being killed every day by radical elements!" is a much more compelling argument likely to have popular support if police really are being killed. Part of the reason the civil rights movement was so effective is that it's very hard to argue against protesters nonviolently staging a sit in and being violently beaten by police for it.

            I think the concept of insurgency is a lot different than individuals resisting authorities. I think the former can be very effective, but is virtually always supplied from the outside. The latter is either ineffective or completely counter productive. Owning a personal weapon doesn't really benefit you in either scenario.

            14 votes
        2. [6]
          Eji1700
          Link Parent
          No, you are not. This is the kinda of weird "well i thought about it for 5 seconds" logic that gets thrown around a lot in these conversations. Tyranny doesn't happen overnight, tyranny isn't...

          In this scenario, you're living as an insurgent

          No, you are not. This is the kinda of weird "well i thought about it for 5 seconds" logic that gets thrown around a lot in these conversations.

          Tyranny doesn't happen overnight, tyranny isn't always just avoided by blood in the streets. Checks and balances exist in literally 1000's of ways, and "what % of my population could make my life hell tomorrow" is a very very real one. The difficulty with which a group can be oppressed is very much related to if they will be.

          8 votes
          1. [5]
            papasquat
            Link Parent
            Most Jewish ghettos in Nazi Germany had a resistance element. The Warsaw, Vilna, and Bialystok ghettos saw major uprisings where the SS and Wehrmacht suffered casualties. Those uprisings never...

            Most Jewish ghettos in Nazi Germany had a resistance element. The Warsaw, Vilna, and Bialystok ghettos saw major uprisings where the SS and Wehrmacht suffered casualties. Those uprisings never made any senior SS officials think "maybe this is too much work, the Holocaust isn't worth it".
            Fascism doesn't work that way. Warsaw was razed to the ground and a significant portion of the city was outright systematically massacred. The Nazis built a concentration camp in its place.

            Oppressing an armed minority group versus an unarmed minority group is just the difference between a few dozen lives, something fascist leaders really don't mind spending in droves.

            During the uprising, somewhere between 20 and 300 German soldiers were killed. Around 50,000 Jews and Jewish sympathizers were killed. This was all done towards the end of the war by a greatly weakened Nazi state.

            The government isn't, and will never be worried about an uprising of trans people fighting back and violently forcing their rights to be preserved.

            What they would be worried about would be an armed, organized insurgency made up of a large opposition coalition with outside funding. Compare the Warsaw ghetto uprising to the French resistance, which really did trip up the Nazis quite significantly.

            Private ownership of guns among vulnerable groups really doesn't enter into the arithmetic for a fascist government. At worst, you lose a few cops and get an absolutely fantastic propaganda story.

            11 votes
            1. [3]
              Eji1700
              Link Parent
              I've tried writing a response something like 4 or 5 times. I can't get over the gall of you implying that somehow the warsaw ghetto is comparable, and arguably I suppose, "shouldn't have bothered".
              • Exemplary

              I've tried writing a response something like 4 or 5 times. I can't get over the gall of you implying that somehow the warsaw ghetto is comparable, and arguably I suppose, "shouldn't have bothered".

              12 votes
              1. sparksbet
                Link Parent
                I similarly found myself unable to formulate a Tildes-appropriate response to that one. When I saw the Warsaw ghetto mentioned at the beginning of the comment I thought the conclusion would be...

                I similarly found myself unable to formulate a Tildes-appropriate response to that one. When I saw the Warsaw ghetto mentioned at the beginning of the comment I thought the conclusion would be very different. I guess it's a shame the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto didn't manage to obtain outside funding, since that's apparently what matters, and only killed hundreds of Nazis before they were brutally murdered themselves.

                11 votes
              2. papasquat
                Link Parent
                I wasn't implying the Warsaw uprising was comparable to anything, since there's nothing to compare it to. I was detailing the differences between the Warsaw uprising with the French resistance,...

                I wasn't implying the Warsaw uprising was comparable to anything, since there's nothing to compare it to. I was detailing the differences between the Warsaw uprising with the French resistance, two violent resistance movements that took very different forms, and one of which contributed significantly to ending the war and the Holocaust, while the other didn't.

                I also didn't say that the Jews in Warsaw shouldn't have bothered. If the options are going down in a blaze of glory or being exterminated in a death camp, the former is preferable, but those are both really really bad options. It also doesn't really matter if you own a gun in that situation.

                My point is that the kind of organic, open revolt where private citizens attack authorities with personally owned weapons isn't likely to be effective. The only way for a civilian to impede a modern military is through insurgency with all that entails. It wasn't a comment on the morality or an attack on the decision making of anyone during WW2, just a strategic analysis.

                8 votes
            2. nukeman
              Link Parent
              By the time you were at the ghetto stage, it was a lot later than optimal for armed resistance to be initiated.

              By the time you were at the ghetto stage, it was a lot later than optimal for armed resistance to be initiated.

              14 votes
    3. [3]
      Eji1700
      Link Parent
      People in aggregate are far more important than individuals. This attitude is self defeatist and flies in the face of basically all known material on the subject. I'm not going to go into the...
      • Exemplary

      What exactly are you going to do, untrained, with a peashooter, against the US military, in this doomsday hypothetical?

      People in aggregate are far more important than individuals. This attitude is self defeatist and flies in the face of basically all known material on the subject. I'm not going to go into the usual circles on this and just say that armed groups have ALWAYS been treated differently than unarmed ones.

      I don't know what riots the rest of the world watched, but the people who showed up armed and organized weren't beaten mercilessly by police. Yes, it vastly increases your chances of being a victim of gun violence, almost certainly of your own doing. But this "well what are you going to do" rhetoric just shows a total ignorance of conflict and the balance of power throughout history with regards to the populace.

      This goes doubly in a country with so many guns (were this one where they weren't easy to acquire it might be different, but it's not).

      18 votes
      1. [2]
        pesus
        Link Parent
        I'm with you. The comments in this thread are really weird, and somehow aggressively defeatist. From the sound of it, a large portion of Tildes would've been telling people not to fight back...

        I'm with you. The comments in this thread are really weird, and somehow aggressively defeatist. From the sound of it, a large portion of Tildes would've been telling people not to fight back against the Nazis that invaded their country in WW2 because it's pointless. Another portion of Tildes would've been denying that the Nazis would ever invade their country because it's illegal and there's no possible way they could ever do that.

        10 votes
        1. papasquat
          Link Parent
          Buying a gun and fighting an invading force are two different things. Going to the store and paying 400 bucks to fantasize about sticking up to tyrranny is easy. Enlisting in the military while...

          Buying a gun and fighting an invading force are two different things.

          Going to the store and paying 400 bucks to fantasize about sticking up to tyrranny is easy. Enlisting in the military while your country is being invaded by an outside force, going through the training and devoting your life to the defense of your ideals is a lot harder. The second one is also historically a lot more effective than the first.

          15 votes
    4. [11]
      Akir
      Link Parent
      In this scenario owning a gun would also constitute training. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear. If I were to get into an altercation with the government, a gun would give me an option I would not...

      In this scenario owning a gun would also constitute training. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.

      If I were to get into an altercation with the government, a gun would give me an option I would not otherwise have. I could skip out on imprisonment. I’d probably die, yes, but I might be able to take out one of those force members. Is it a shitty option? Absolutely. But I think having it is valuable nonetheless.

      I am also not in great health and running isn’t going to be a viable option anytime soon, so unfortunately that isn’t helpful advice for me.

      Regarding suicide, I actually have a history of depression. It wasn’t that long ago that I ended therapy for it, and it ate up most of my childhood. In all of this time I have never made an attempt to end my life. So suicide isn’t something I or other people should worry about, at least in regards to me doing it.

      There are going to be a lot of people who will have the opinion that leftists shouldn’t own guns. I hope it doesn’t overwhelm the conversation too much, because I have begun to question the ethos behind that sentiment. Like it or not, the people who have always made the biggest changes in the US were armed.

      11 votes
      1. R3qn65
        Link Parent
        If you're uncomfortable with guns, not in good health, and have a history of depression, you should not buy a gun for the purpose of resisting the government. The potential gain is nil and the...

        If you're uncomfortable with guns, not in good health, and have a history of depression, you should not buy a gun for the purpose of resisting the government. The potential gain is nil and the risk (or accident, suicide, etc.) exists.

        24 votes
      2. papasquat
        Link Parent
        Not really. The only way a gun would let you skip out on imprisonment is by suicide, either directly, or by shooting a police officer. You won't get away with a crime by killing a cop though. The...

        I were to get into an altercation with the government, a gun would give me an option I would not otherwise have. I could skip out on imprisonment. I’d probably die, yes, but I might be able to take out one of those force members. Is it a shitty option? Absolutely. But I think having it is valuable nonetheless.

        Not really. The only way a gun would let you skip out on imprisonment is by suicide, either directly, or by shooting a police officer. You won't get away with a crime by killing a cop though. The cases where that's happened are so rare that they're not even worth mentioning. Once a police officer is killed by a criminal, the amount of resources dedicated to finding that person are monumental. They will find you. So it's just committing suicide with extra steps, and really, there are a lot of ways to commit suicide, even in prison (not that I think that should really even be an option on the table).

        I don't think that leftists shouldn't own guns. I own guns, and I'm a leftist, so that would be pretty hypocritical. I think that owning guns in order to resist the government is a pretty foolhardy idea though, and one which may get you on a list, arrested, or killed.

        10 votes
      3. tanglisha
        Link Parent
        You don’t need to own a gun to get training. I strongly feel that all adults in the US should know how guns work well enough to be able to handle one safely, recognize a jam, and recognize when...

        You don’t need to own a gun to get training. I strongly feel that all adults in the US should know how guns work well enough to be able to handle one safely, recognize a jam, and recognize when reloading is happening. This has less to do with the government and more to do with random events like finding a gun or being in a crowd someone decides to shoot into for whatever reason. It doesn’t matter if you’re for or against gun ownership, this is a case where there’s no downside to knowing the enemy.

        Folks who have no real exposure to guns feel completely helpless when one comes into play. Once someone else has a gun in their hand, they seem to hold all the power. But is that an airsoft gun, unloaded, or is the safety on? Does the person holding it actually know how to use it?

        Recognizing a break in the shooting and how long it’s likely to take provides an opportunity to try to get the gun, the ammo, or exit the area while they aren’t actively being shot at. Outside of movies and video games, guns require reloading. Someone using an automatic will waste lots of bullets shorting at walls and the ceiling. Extended magazines tend to jam.

        9 votes
      4. [2]
        stu2b50
        Link Parent
        Fitness isn't immutable. Anything helps. If you read accounts by people who survived horrific dictatorships, they did so by being lucky, and having a body that will allow them to take advantage of...

        Fitness isn't immutable. Anything helps. If you read accounts by people who survived horrific dictatorships, they did so by being lucky, and having a body that will allow them to take advantage of their lucky breaks. Never by outshooting the authoritarian.

        And as a bonus, being more fit will improve your quality of life in every possible way in the world where none of the doomsday stuff happens, so it's a win-win, which gun ownership isn't.

        5 votes
        1. Akir
          Link Parent
          I actually am working on it. But for now running isn't super realistic.

          I actually am working on it. But for now running isn't super realistic.

          1 vote
      5. boxer_dogs_dance
        Link Parent
        Be aware that if you actually want an option to choose death rather than arrest, there are options that are not guns that are easier to hide.

        Be aware that if you actually want an option to choose death rather than arrest, there are options that are not guns that are easier to hide.

        4 votes
      6. [4]
        nukeman
        Link Parent
        Have you had any depressive episodes recently?

        Have you had any depressive episodes recently?

        1. [3]
          Akir
          Link Parent
          Nope. Some normal sadness. In terms of mood and self-image, I’m better than I have been in years.

          Nope. Some normal sadness. In terms of mood and self-image, I’m better than I have been in years.

          9 votes
          1. [2]
            nukeman
            Link Parent
            You on any medication? This would be a case where it may be okay to get a firearm, provided you have someone trusted you can give it to if things start going south mentally.

            You on any medication? This would be a case where it may be okay to get a firearm, provided you have someone trusted you can give it to if things start going south mentally.

            1 vote
            1. Akir
              Link Parent
              I'm not on medication for any mental issues. I have a husband to help me when things get bad.

              I'm not on medication for any mental issues. I have a husband to help me when things get bad.

              2 votes
    5. Plik
      Link Parent
      IMO put the money into building a biplane and learning to fly. Also build a boat and learn to sail by the stars. Also find a nice island with plenty of fresh water, coconuts, and fish. Oh yeah,...

      IMO put the money into building a biplane and learning to fly. Also build a boat and learn to sail by the stars. Also find a nice island with plenty of fresh water, coconuts, and fish.

      Oh yeah, learn to scale a coconut tree.

      If we are imagining dystopian disaster futures.

      2 votes
  3. vord
    (edited )
    Link
    I don't think a gun would stop agents of the state and would be a bad idea to even try. However... Learning to handle guns safely should be mandatory in the USA. Not even shooting them. Just how...

    I don't think a gun would stop agents of the state and would be a bad idea to even try. However...

    Learning to handle guns safely should be mandatory in the USA. Not even shooting them. Just how to hold them safely, how to check if they are loaded and how to unload them. If you or your children over 7 can't do this, find a local gun safety course and do the training immediately. Yes, even if you don't own a gun. I hate to link them, but this is exactly what the NRA is good at. If every American reading this takes the basic safety course, statistically at least 2 of you will save a life. It's right up there with the Red Cross's first aid and CPR courses for "education that should be mandatory but a lot of people don't even know about."

    As others mentioned, attempting to use a gun against agents of the state is, at best, a futile and dangerous choice if untrained. If properly trained and willing to die, you could probably hold off a local police force until SWAT arrives.

    However, owning a shotgun and learning to use it well could be good for keeping roaming vigilantes at bay, particularly if you are a targeted minority. If you are in a city and are a woman or LGBT+, getting a concealed carry handgun and regularly practicing with it could well save you or a friend's life. It is not necessarily a better option than mace, but ironically might be more legal to carry a gun with proper paperwork.

    ignoring it is the same as acceptance

    This is an uncomfortable truth. If you are not willing to take a stand against injustice, you are letting fascists win. They'll exploit every possibility to gain and keep power. Trying to let the authorities or the regular system work is how it falls apart. Hitler was elected and exploited the law to dismantle it.

    That said, you can take that stand without a gun or violence. Help set up safe spaces in your community. Organize. Talk about it frankly. Call strangers out in public when you hear them saying sexist, bigoted, or fascist shit. If nothing else, go hang out at the library. If enough antifascists start doing it, you'll start finding each other.

    But be warned: Even peacefully taking a stand against fascism is not without its risks. Violence and oppression is the name of their game.

    I'll be posting a blog post soonish: Punching Nazis Works.

    27 votes
  4. [2]
    kfwyre
    Link
    This isn’t about guns, but this part of your statement stuck out to me: I see that sort of sentiment a lot online, and I don’t like it. It flattens active fascists and people who don’t know how...

    This isn’t about guns, but this part of your statement stuck out to me:

    it said something that I was uncomfortable hearing; ignoring it is the same as acceptance.

    I see that sort of sentiment a lot online, and I don’t like it.

    It flattens active fascists and people who don’t know how to/can’t confront fascism into the same group, with a strong implication that the latter are at fault.

    I think that’s cheap rhetorical sleight of hand (there’s actually a VAST distance between those two groups). Furthermore, I think it’s functionally harmful in that it creates an accountability dodge. It gives actual fascists someone else to point to as being culpable for their actions.

    Don’t buy into it. You are not personally responsible for a rise in fascism because you personally didn’t counter it enough. That’s absolutely not how it works.

    22 votes
    1. vord
      Link Parent
      The people not confronting are like the logs, not the fire. While they are not destructive the way the fascists are, they're enablers. They don't deserve a punch in the face, but maybe a little...

      The people not confronting are like the logs, not the fire. While they are not destructive the way the fascists are, they're enablers. They don't deserve a punch in the face, but maybe a little bit of guilt for not helping is warranted?

      As I pointed out: there are plenty of ways to fight against fascism that are nonviolent in nature. It's not just about 'boots on the ground punching Nazis.' It's also about rejecting their rhetoric and inspiring others to do the same. It's about avoiding that normalization of violence towards minorities.

      4 votes
  5. [2]
    norb
    Link
    I am with you on this. I would probably be described as "left leaning" politically. As time goes on and I get older, I move more and more left in my opinions. Mostly because the outright cruelty...

    I am with you on this. I would probably be described as "left leaning" politically. As time goes on and I get older, I move more and more left in my opinions. Mostly because the outright cruelty of the right wing of American politics sickens me.

    I do not like guns. I think our fascination with them here in the US is a sickness. I think the idea that they solve more problems than they create is a lie we've been told to prop up a gun industry, normalize violence, and make us afraid.

    On the other hand, we are living in an age where police forces are paramilitarized, the president can and will use CBP as a military force within the US border, and our civil rights are being pried apart.

    So if this is your driving motivator, what would a gun accomplish for you personally in a situation where you would interact with these elements of society? If you shoot an agent of the state, do you think you will get away with it? Do you think that if you pull out a gun it is going to lessen the chance a gun is used against you? If you have a gun in your house, does it increase the likelihood of it being used to hurt yourself or your loved ones?

    All of those government agents have training. They have body armor. They have bigger and more lethal guns. If they really wanted to, they have drones. They have bombs. They have jets and helicopters and every other instrument of war at their disposal. If society falls to a point where you are comfortable shooting someone else, isn't it already too late?

    For me, I will stand by my ideals that guns are bad and we shouldn't have them. They provide a false sense of security and, measurably, having one actually makes you LESS safe. These are the lies you've been told. I find that a lot of the "leftists" calling for all of us to have guns are just accelerationists of their own kind. They really believe society needs to collapse to get what they want. My feeling is, a societal collapse is wholly chaotic and there's no guarantee anyone gets what they want out of it, and trying to guide the outcome of something like that is impossible.

    21 votes
    1. Akir
      Link Parent
      Yeah, you are pretty much describing my own thoughts and feelings. Owning a gun is also taking on all the baggage of owning a gun, and there is quite a lot of it. Part of the reason why I wanted...

      Yeah, you are pretty much describing my own thoughts and feelings.

      Owning a gun is also taking on all the baggage of owning a gun, and there is quite a lot of it.

      Part of the reason why I wanted to ask this question, though, was to take the time to listen to people who feel otherwise and reevaluate their arguements given my shifting feelings.

      7 votes
  6. [21]
    unkz
    Link
    I realize that things are stressful for people living in America, but the level of rhetoric is frankly unreasonable. Some good points have been made about how guns are not going to do anything...

    I realize that things are stressful for people living in America, but the level of rhetoric is frankly unreasonable. Some good points have been made about how

    • guns are not going to do anything against the US military
    • owning guns is more likely to result in successful suicide
    • having guns in the household is a terrible source of accidental deaths

    but the most important fact here is that the US military are not actually going to come into your home to kill you. The US military is made up of regular American citizens, who have no desire to kill Americans, and would actively resist orders to do so even if those orders were coming from Trump himself.

    15 votes
    1. [13]
      vord
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Caveat: This is not true if they are ordered to help with the "deportations." Notice how people with nontraditional gender markers on their passports are starting to have them confiscated....

      the US military are not actually going to come into your home to kill you

      Caveat: This is not true if they are ordered to help with the "deportations." Notice how people with nontraditional gender markers on their passports are starting to have them confiscated. Scenarios that were previously unthinkable 10 years ago are suddenly no longer impossible, and that means seriously reevaluating previous assumptions.

      Heads up kids: The "deporting illegals" was just rhetoric that was already happening. Trump and crew are pushing to deport the legals by changing the meaning of legal.

      24 votes
      1. [12]
        unkz
        Link Parent
        Do you have a source for this? As far as I can tell, this is an unsubstantiated rumour. It’s what I would call fact-adjacent, in that it is related to an actual policy, of suspending passport...

        Notice how people with nontraditional gender markers on their passports are starting to have them confiscated.

        Do you have a source for this? As far as I can tell, this is an unsubstantiated rumour. It’s what I would call fact-adjacent, in that it is related to an actual policy, of suspending passport applications, but not itself an actual fact.

        Trump and crew are pushing to deport the legals by changing the meaning of legal.

        This is the kind of rhetoric I’m talking about. If you are an American citizen, the US military is not going to kill you, and it isn’t going to deport you either.

        8 votes
        1. pesus
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Frankly, this just sounds like every other time someone has said "that can't happen" about something like this. Trump couldn't win the election. Trump couldn't get away with an insurrection. Trump...

          Frankly, this just sounds like every other time someone has said "that can't happen" about something like this. Trump couldn't win the election. Trump couldn't get away with an insurrection. Trump couldn't have the military deport citizens or shoot them. I'm sorry, but it really seems you're in denial about what the government somehow "can't" do. There is nothing stopping them.

          Edit: Trump is already talking about deporting citizens who commit a crime. Stephen Miller is still one of his cronies, and he wants to retroactively strip native born citizens of their citizenship. Being in denial about it will only serve to hasten it.

          16 votes
        2. [7]
          DefinitelyNotAFae
          Link Parent
          It's from folks with an X marker submitting their passport for renewal. In those instances you submit your old passport, but you're not being given a new one. Functionally this means they have no...

          Do you have a source for this? As far as I can tell, this is an unsubstantiated rumour. It’s what I would call fact-adjacent, in that it is related to an actual policy, of suspending passport applications, but not itself an actual fact.

          It's from folks with an X marker submitting their passport for renewal. In those instances you submit your old passport, but you're not being given a new one. Functionally this means they have no passport. Same if there's a gender marker change right now. Unclear how it'll resolve or how quickly.

          10 votes
          1. [6]
            gary
            Link Parent
            To clarify, it's for people submitting an application (first passport or renewal) where the application has an X for gender. People already with passports with an X marker are overwhelmingly not...

            To clarify, it's for people submitting an application (first passport or renewal) where the application has an X for gender. People already with passports with an X marker are overwhelmingly not likely to need renewal yet since passports are good for 10 years and X was allowed starting in 2022. (Pretty much) no one who already has an X should be losing that, but going forward, no one will be able to get an X until this policy change is rolled back.

            6 votes
            1. [5]
              DefinitelyNotAFae
              Link Parent
              It sounds like it was people who were trying to change their marker too - they may have submitted it attempting to get it back before the administration change. I know someone who was changing...

              It sounds like it was people who were trying to change their marker too - they may have submitted it attempting to get it back before the administration change. I know someone who was changing identification back to binary but I don't recall if passport was one that needed changing or hadn't been updated to X yet so I can't verify their experience.

              4 votes
              1. [4]
                gary
                Link Parent
                True, I hadn't thought about how people might want to preemptively change it just in case it causes them problems traveling back to the US after a trip. But passports take a while anyway and it's...

                True, I hadn't thought about how people might want to preemptively change it just in case it causes them problems traveling back to the US after a trip. But passports take a while anyway and it's only been a week since Trump took over so it very well could just be slow bureaucracy in addition to the chaos he's enacting. I can't imagine they want the X to remain.. but who knows.

                3 votes
                1. [3]
                  DefinitelyNotAFae
                  Link Parent
                  They've explicitly said they're not issuing X passports or gender changes. I'm also sure they don't want the X to remain, but figuring out how to mark it "correctly" especially when folks have all...

                  They've explicitly said they're not issuing X passports or gender changes. I'm also sure they don't want the X to remain, but figuring out how to mark it "correctly" especially when folks have all of their other documentation changed might be tricky. They're just not letting Anything change gender-wise right now.

                  https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/rubio-passport-sex-marker-changes-paused-trump-order-rcna189222

                  5 votes
                  1. [2]
                    gary
                    Link Parent
                    Misread you in the last reply to mean X -> M/F, but you meant M/F -> X (made before the administration change), but now the M/F -> X applications are in limbo post administration change right? And...

                    Misread you in the last reply to mean X -> M/F, but you meant M/F -> X (made before the administration change), but now the M/F -> X applications are in limbo post administration change right?

                    And thanks for shedding more light here, cause after reading the article I see it's not just X. Gender changes in the past might be disallowed now. What a clusterfuck.

                    3 votes
                    1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                      Link Parent
                      Yeah though it sounds like technically both are in limbo as well as M/F to F/M. Basically anything changing is on hold and any X at all (who was maybe was seeking a replacement or a last minute...

                      Yeah though it sounds like technically both are in limbo as well as M/F to F/M.

                      Basically anything changing is on hold and any X at all (who was maybe was seeking a replacement or a last minute change to X that didn't get issued in time) they're all stuck.

                      3 votes
        3. [2]
          xk3
          Link Parent
          I don't think citizens should be worried, but what about existing refugees, immigrant visas, or Lawful Permanent Residents?...

          If you are an American citizen, the US military is not going to kill you, and it isn’t going to deport you either.

          I don't think citizens should be worried, but what about existing refugees, immigrant visas, or Lawful Permanent Residents?

          https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/4/226051/US-bound-refugees-in-Hong-Kong-despair-as-Trump-halts-arrivals

          7 votes
          1. unkz
            Link Parent
            That’s a very different question, isn’t it? And also one where gun ownership is not going to help.

            That’s a very different question, isn’t it? And also one where gun ownership is not going to help.

            4 votes
        4. sparksbet
          Link Parent
          I have friends (trans US citizens living abroad like me) who are struggling to get their passports renewed because they have already changed their gender marker in the past and the legal advice...

          Do you have a source for this? As far as I can tell, this is an unsubstantiated rumour.

          I have friends (trans US citizens living abroad like me) who are struggling to get their passports renewed because they have already changed their gender marker in the past and the legal advice they've been getting from the embassies and lawyers is that they can't guarantee they'll actually get a valid passport back bc of the new orders. You have to send in your old passport to get the new one, so this amounts to confiscating their passport in practice.

          7 votes
    2. [3]
      papasquat
      Link Parent
      I think this statement has a lot more caveats than most people are willing to admit. I've spent a lot of time in the US Military, and I can give some perspective on this I think. First, if an...

      the US military are not actually going to come into your home to kill you.

      I think this statement has a lot more caveats than most people are willing to admit. I've spent a lot of time in the US Military, and I can give some perspective on this I think. First, if an order came from the president to the NORTHCOM commander (who would be the person in the military that would receive an order like this) to "go door to door, and execute any Liberal/Trans Person/Person of Mexican descent/whatever", I'm fully confident that the current NORTHCOM commander, or anyone that could reasonably be appointed to that position would refuse the order, as it's blatantly illegal. I'm fully confident that all the subordinate commanders would as well, and virtually all of the US military would.

      That's not really how these things go in fascism though. It's more of a boiling of a frog. Certain groups get targeted as subversive elements, then they get targeted as criminals for "refusing to comply" with morality laws or whatever. Then they get forcibly moved. That's where violence starts getting used, but it's couched in euphemism and suggestive language that makes it seem like it's their fault.

      You see this today with police killings. Comments online are usually chock full of "well he shouldn't have given him such a hard time", or "obviously you shouldn't be wearing a hoodie" or "well lots of people that look like that are violent criminals.

      Maybe a special military unit gets created that is only populated by true believer loyalists, and the more distasteful stuff gets enacted by them, but the rest of the military just kind of minds their own business.

      By the time it gets to outright violence and killings, it's become normalized and people are not only used to it, they'll defend the system that's doing it.

      The Holocaust didn't start with the Wehrmacht going door to door and killing Jews. Even with all the anti Jewish sentiment in Nazi Germany in the early 30s, most of them probably would have refused those orders and resisted. It happened gradually, with more and more problems being blamed on the outgroups, and more and more restrictions and harsh treatment being enacted by them. The SS drew on the ranks of the Wehrmacht in some cases, and political loyalists in others, but by the time they were doing all of the dirty work, most of the German military had accepted the new status quo.

      There's nothing special about the US military that prevents that from happening here. We're the same species as the Germans in 1933 after all. So yeah, US army infantry isnt going to kick down your door and shoot you in the next few weeks, but it isn't inconceivable that one day, something similar may happen.

      That said, as I stated in other comments in this thread, buying a gun is not a solution to this possibility.

      18 votes
      1. [2]
        Akir
        Link Parent
        Yeah, this is the stuff I'm really worried about. I'm gay. I'm married to a man. Although my rights aren't explicitly on the chopping block right now, the overton window is shifting and it feels...

        Yeah, this is the stuff I'm really worried about. I'm gay. I'm married to a man. Although my rights aren't explicitly on the chopping block right now, the overton window is shifting and it feels like it's only a matter of time.

        5 votes
        1. boxer_dogs_dance
          Link Parent
          Paxton's book the Anatomy of Fascism is one of my sources for history. According to Paxton, far more fascist groups have failed to establish dictatorship than have succeeded. But we are living in...

          Paxton's book the Anatomy of Fascism is one of my sources for history. According to Paxton, far more fascist groups have failed to establish dictatorship than have succeeded.

          But we are living in dangerous times and we need to play what cards we have carefully

          5 votes
    3. [4]
      Promonk
      Link Parent
      I'm not concerned about the military, for the reasons you give. I'm more concerned about private paramilitary groups. Brownshirts, in other words. Groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and...

      I'm not concerned about the military, for the reasons you give. I'm more concerned about private paramilitary groups. Brownshirts, in other words. Groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Bugaloo Boys are both more likely to do violence to leftists on the streets, and they can be dissuaded by armed opposition.

      HOWEVER (feel free to mentally envision that written in thirty-foot-tall flaming letters for emphasis) it isn't the weapons that ultimately dissuade them, it's organization. A lone armed opponent won't stop a rampaging mob of brownshirts, and would most likely get themselves and innocents killed. A group of people with no coordination and only vaguely defined sense of common purpose might prevail, though it depends on the breaks. But a well-organized group with clearly defined purpose and pre-established rules of engagement, some of whom might be armed, all of whom are definitely camera'd up to the tits, will almost certainly shut them down. The arming is the least part of that.

      I think the question "should leftists arm themselves?" doesn't really address what's needed. What leftists need to do most to protect themselves and targeted minorities is organize. Train together on things like holding a line against tear gas and brownshirt mobs, when to break lines to regroup and how, how and when to report opposition positions and movements to designated coordinators, how to make sure every angle of a street confrontation is recorded and how to ensure data security and upload of footage, and yes, when the use of force is necessary and how to effectively use it. In short, it's probably overdue for leftists to form some well-organized militias and make some proper use of their Second Amendment rights.

      I have no experience of war or street fighting, but I do know that guns alone don't win fights. I've read enough history to know that authoritarians rely more on their oppositions being disorganized than being disarmed. Get the organization together first and worry about the guns later, if you must.

      17 votes
      1. vord
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Redneck Revolt and Socialist Rifle Association and are two such lefty organizations which defended community members during the Charlottesville "Unite the right." They are being sued by Virginia....

        Redneck Revolt and Socialist Rifle Association and are two such lefty organizations which defended community members during the Charlottesville "Unite the right." They are being sued by Virginia.

        I agree that joining an organization like this is probably the correct path to gun ownership.

        9 votes
      2. [2]
        Akir
        Link Parent
        This is very insightful, I think. Since I started thinking about this topic, many of those thoughts were about the Black Panther party. Regardless of where on the left-right dichotamy they were,...

        This is very insightful, I think. Since I started thinking about this topic, many of those thoughts were about the Black Panther party. Regardless of where on the left-right dichotamy they were, the thing that made them effective was not that they were made up of armed people, but that they were an armed group. It's the same reason why we're worried about those right leaning militias.

        6 votes
        1. Promonk
          Link Parent
          It's no coincidence that the verbiage of the Second Amendment specifically points out the necessity of well-organized militias. A certain Rambo-inspired demographic has long focused on the "right...

          It's no coincidence that the verbiage of the Second Amendment specifically points out the necessity of well-organized militias. A certain Rambo-inspired demographic has long focused on the "right to bear arms" aspect, but the organization seems more relevant and impactful to me.

          2 votes
  7. [3]
    KapteinB
    Link
    I have seen people on Reddit suggest that if enough coloured and/or liberal people buy firearms, it would change how conservatives view the Second Amendment. Here's Bojack Horseman's take on the...

    I have seen people on Reddit suggest that if enough coloured and/or liberal people buy firearms, it would change how conservatives view the Second Amendment.

    Here's Bojack Horseman's take on the subject.

    14 votes
    1. [2]
      Bet
      Link Parent
      Probably because they’re familiar with American history. This idea that liberals hate guns is just bizarre. What communities does that include? Plenty of people of all kinds understand the utility...

      Probably because they’re familiar with American history. This idea that liberals hate guns is just bizarre. What communities does that include? Plenty of people of all kinds understand the utility of a gun; they just don’t go around shouting about it. That’s why gun legislation always fails — it’s based on misrepresentation.

      12 votes
  8. ShroudedScribe
    Link
    I personally find the idea of gun ownership for the sake of self defense illogical. A few of my thoughts on it: For self defense at home, you would want to keep your gun accessible. The most...

    I personally find the idea of gun ownership for the sake of self defense illogical. A few of my thoughts on it:

    • For self defense at home, you would want to keep your gun accessible. The most common hypothetical scenario is someone breaking into your residence for one reason or another, and having the ability to attack them. But that requires a few different things to "go right" - identifying there is a threat to your safety or security, getting the weapon in your possession, confidently finding your target, having the readiness to accurately shoot your target, ensuring your weapon isn't taken from you (putting you at risk of having it used on you), and having certainty that your target is a threat and not a family member or kid. (These become much harder to do at night.)

    • Responsible gun ownership includes keeping your guns in a safe, lockbox, or other secure location that is protected by a lock of some kind. This prevents the weapon from not only being accessible to any children who live in or visit your home, but also reduces the likelihood that it could be stolen if someone robbed your house. But if your gun is locked away instead of under your bed, you won't be able to act very quickly against an immediate threat.

    • Guns won't (legally) protect you in public. I live in a US state that allows both open and conceal carry without a permit (in most cases). But almost every business has a prominent sign in the window that says firearms aren't allowed inside. So what good is carrying your weapon? Having it on you when you go for a hike? You won't be able to take it indoors anywhere.

    • How good is your aim? If you're a good shot at the range, how does that translate to the dark? What about a moving target? How about when you're still half asleep and only awake because you heard a glass window break?

    All this being said, I think it's reasonable to own some guns for the purpose of sport or hunting. But for self defense, especially at home, are they really that much better than a metal baseball bat?

    11 votes
  9. Eji1700
    Link
    I want to be clear that despite my posts in this topic arguing against what I think are poorly made arguments, I do not think with the information you've given, that you should buy a weapon. I do...

    I want to be clear that despite my posts in this topic arguing against what I think are poorly made arguments, I do not think with the information you've given, that you should buy a weapon.

    I do think that merely owning a weapon and being trained properly in how to respect and use it helps prevent the kind of things you're worried about, even if it's only ever kept in a safe and occasionally used at a range, but it is important to realize that it is a deadly tool, and unless you want to spend time getting yourself more comfortable with that it's more likely to harm your life than do any net good.

    9 votes
  10. PuddleOfKittens
    Link
    It depends if you think there's a chance of political instability or civil war. If you say "yes, there's a chance" then absolutely, yes, buy a gun. It gives you options. If nothing else, you could...

    It depends if you think there's a chance of political instability or civil war. If you say "yes, there's a chance" then absolutely, yes, buy a gun. It gives you options. If nothing else, you could sell it during a price spike.

    You have to make the decision before the disaster, though. If things start going downhill, people will toilet-paper the guns and ammo.

    8 votes
  11. R3qn65
    Link
    Training is immaterial. If you're not willing to kill someone, then in the scenario where you're in some sort of armed confrontation with agents of the government, having a gun just means that you...

    Training is immaterial. If you're not willing to kill someone, then in the scenario where you're in some sort of armed confrontation with agents of the government, having a gun just means that you get shot and die rather than getting arrested. Besides, if you think there's going to be a civil war, then the states will be arming their soldiers anyway - you having a gun is irrelevant.

    Probably the least likely conceivable scenario is one in which armed federal agents are rounding up innocent people, and they're all going along with this absurdly unconstitutional order, and the states are letting this happen, but somehow random civilians with guns are able to stop it.

    In any event, I have seen civil war. 90% of people just live their everyday lives as best they can. Another 9% of people have guns buried in their yard, but never actually do anything even during an active war - and then about 1% is engaged in active fighting, which is almost always limited to one part of the country. Look at Ukraine right now - and that's not even a civil war, they got invaded.

    8 votes
  12. EgoEimi
    Link
    US police are paramilitarized in response to the US populace being heavily armed. Street police in many developed countries are lightly armed because they don't have to deal with citizens armed...

    US police are paramilitarized in response to the US populace being heavily armed. Street police in many developed countries are lightly armed because they don't have to deal with citizens armed with automatic weapons and armor.

    Police in China, which is far more repressive than the US, are generally unarmed; if they are, then it's usually with just a pistol. They don't have to deal with an armed populace.

    The US really needs to gradually lower its violence waterline by slowly disarming the populace. Adding more weapons to the mix by arming leftists is really just accepting the right's "an armed society is a polite society" argument and will just raise the violence waterline.

    8 votes
  13. AugustusFerdinand
    Link
    Owning a gun alone isn't enough in my opinion (and I'm not talking about training with it either, that is an expectation of ownership). If you are going to own a gun, or several, for the reasons...

    Owning a gun alone isn't enough in my opinion (and I'm not talking about training with it either, that is an expectation of ownership).
    If you are going to own a gun, or several, for the reasons that prompted this question (aka not just as a hobby), then you need to have an honest conversation with yourself over whether or not you are willing and capable of using it against another human being, if you are willing to face the consequences of that, and if you are willing to forfeit your life for doing so.
    Now, not all of these questions can be answered fully, but a reasonable expectation is figure out where your line in the sand may be.

    7 votes
  14. infpossibilityspace
    Link
    Guns aren't legal where I live, but I don't think owning a gun works to reverse the trend towards fascism. Most people don't write to their representatives, go to bill hearings or protests -All of...

    Guns aren't legal where I live, but I don't think owning a gun works to reverse the trend towards fascism.

    Most people don't write to their representatives, go to bill hearings or protests -All of which are less stressful, less dangerous, and imo more effective than shooting someone you disagree with (up to a certain point, which I really hope hasn't been crossed).

    Not to mention the financial cost of buying equipment/training, and the mental burden of ending another humans life.

    5 votes
  15. [3]
    ButteredToast
    Link
    I’ve had similar thoughts and I find myself leaning more and more in the direction of moving to a country with sane gun laws. Even though I grew up around them (you can’t live in a rural area near...

    I’ve had similar thoughts and I find myself leaning more and more in the direction of moving to a country with sane gun laws. Even though I grew up around them (you can’t live in a rural area near a forest and not have at least one as a critter deterrent/defense), the older I get the less I want to have anything to do with them.

    5 votes
    1. [2]
      Akir
      Link Parent
      Neither me nor my husband have skills or money that would make moving to another country realistically possible. That is discounting the option of moving to poor or unstable countries, though.

      Neither me nor my husband have skills or money that would make moving to another country realistically possible. That is discounting the option of moving to poor or unstable countries, though.

      7 votes
      1. ButteredToast
        Link Parent
        Yeah, totally understand that’s not an option for everybody. It still wouldn’t be particularly easy in my case.

        Yeah, totally understand that’s not an option for everybody. It still wouldn’t be particularly easy in my case.

        1 vote
  16. Fiachra
    Link
    Okay, I'm not American and don't have any real understanding of US gun culture. But. All I'm saying is, I'm told that the Black Panthers open-carrying is what motivated a lot of gun control laws...

    Okay, I'm not American and don't have any real understanding of US gun culture. But. All I'm saying is, I'm told that the Black Panthers open-carrying is what motivated a lot of gun control laws back then. So if you want gun control, and mass shootings clearly aren't motivating any change, maybe tankies with guns is worth a try...

    3 votes
  17. [4]
    Notcoffeetable
    Link
    No I don’t think US leftists should be armed. But I think that in our public discourse on gun control the left is at a disadvantage because of the relative lack of familiarity with firearms. I...

    No I don’t think US leftists should be armed. But I think that in our public discourse on gun control the left is at a disadvantage because of the relative lack of familiarity with firearms. I would encourage most people to sign up for a class or two to understand how they are operated, the essential types, and their functions. Right now many of my friends who do not have experience with firearms have a visceral fear of them. This general vibe in the left undermines efforts to make sensible reforms.

    For the majority of people a gun is not going to be an effective self defense tool. Responsible ownership conflicts with them as home defense. Ammunition should be secured separately and by a different mechanism than the weapon itself. The firearm should be secured empty, trigger or slide locks are also good ideas. In the event of a home invasion a bat with a sock on it is a much better defensive weapon which can be kept within an arms reach of your bed.

    There is some defensive value if you are required to enter into a dangerous situation. For this purpose regular training is necessary and not cheap. Training for this should go beyond plinking at the range regularly and should be undertaken with a professional instructor who can set up simulations to drill firearm operation under the effects of stress and adrenaline. This is a serious endeavor that I think more leftists should consider but is definitely not something for everyone. The likelihood of one actually using this training is essentially zero so the value is marginal at best.

    For the purpose of mass resistance whatever firearms individuals own will be relatively inconsequential. Arms will be available to those who volunteer. The highest value will be leadership, organizational, logistic, and political skills. Maintaining a reasonable level of athleticism, partaking in some regular training, and bringing whatever your particular talents are to a resistance will be the best way to contribute.

    2 votes
    1. [3]
      papasquat
      Link Parent
      Yeah, honestly the rhetoric from many people on the left about guns is similar to the rhetoric from people on the right about trans issues. By that I mean that they're both completely uneducated...

      Yeah, honestly the rhetoric from many people on the left about guns is similar to the rhetoric from people on the right about trans issues. By that I mean that they're both completely uneducated about the topics they're proposing to regulate.

      If someone is confidently saying that we should ban certain types of guns, and can't even detail the difference between a clip and a magazine, or semi automatic versus full automatic, or recognize that a .223 semi auto hunting rifle with a wooden stock is effectively the same weapon as an AR-15, they need to spend a few hours actually learning the topic before they put their foots in their mouths, because to people familiar with guns, it has the exact same impact as "Kids can just decide they're a girl when they're 13 and teachers will let them cut their dicks off".

      You don't have to have any interest in guns yourself, but if you're proposing legislation of any kind, you should at least educate yourself about the topic.

      3 votes
      1. Notcoffeetable
        Link Parent
        I think I understand that you are comparing the tone of anti-trans rhetoric to anti-gun rhetoric. But the veracity of the claims are not similar. Leftists arguments against guns are made in good...

        Yeah, honestly the rhetoric from many people on the left about guns is similar to the rhetoric from people on the right about trans issues.

        I think I understand that you are comparing the tone of anti-trans rhetoric to anti-gun rhetoric. But the veracity of the claims are not similar. Leftists arguments against guns are made in good faith. Arguments against the rights of our trans brethren are made to oppress and have no place in a fair, egalitarian society.

        In fact, I’d wager if more leftists engaged with gun culture, they would recognize how far behind we really are. Scary looking M4-geries are a red herring. We need to look at how easy it is to make a ghost gun. How the lower receiver is the only part that is serialized and how poorly written controls are easily circumvented. How it’s easier to purchase a firearm than it is to get a license to drive a vehicle. Both of which of endanger others when improperly navigated through society.

        I decided to engage with the hobby for a couple reasons:

        • I don’t like the power imbalance between the left and right when it comes to our knowledge of these devices.
        • They’re baked into our society. Some of us can ignore them, not all of us should ignore them.
        • It’s a way to break out of my own bubble. Part of our current political strife is the lack of in person dialogue. I want to show up in their space on their terms and show that I’m not the stereotype they might believe. Likewise I want to breakdown the stereotypes I hold.
        • I have enough familiarity with guns to know that I enjoy operating and maintaining them. I understand and have the resources to secure them in such a way that they pose minimal risk to me and my family. I do not have a history of aggressive or self destructive behavior or temptations.
        1 vote
      2. vord
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        In fairness: A lot of the 'arm lefties' has equivalents on the right. The lefties might not know how to shoot yet, but there is no shortage of 'fighting tyranny' delusions on the right. But as Jan...

        In fairness: A lot of the 'arm lefties' has equivalents on the right. The lefties might not know how to shoot yet, but there is no shortage of 'fighting tyranny' delusions on the right.

        But as Jan 6th shows, you don't necessarily need a highly coordinated military op to cause some serious damage. Just sufficient numbers of commoners with guns and a few figureheads giving speeches.

        That said, Jan 6th got a lot farther than any mostly-brown crowd would before the order to kill on sight came down.

  18. [3]
    lou
    (edited )
    Link
    This video was released about a month ago. Meet The Socialist Rifle Association - YouTube. And here's how you give socialist firearm advice. I chuckled:

    This video was released about a month ago.

    Meet The Socialist Rifle Association - YouTube.


    And here's how you give socialist firearm advice. I chuckled:

    Lethality. While terminal ballistics of rifles will always trump handguns, the imperialist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq taught the US military about the limitations of the .223/5.56mm round... (source).

    2 votes
    1. [2]
      vord
      Link Parent
      I mean, they did explicitly stop counting the civilians killed for awhile in Afghanistan, and most estimates put civilian deaths at or higher than combatant deaths. As of 2019, pro-government...

      I mean, they did explicitly stop counting the civilians killed for awhile in Afghanistan, and most estimates put civilian deaths at or higher than combatant deaths. As of 2019, pro-government forces are killing more civilians than ISIS and Taliban are.

      1 vote
      1. lou
        Link Parent
        I don't question the truthfulness of the statement. I just found it funny, the juxtaposition of practical advice and a random political statement in what was largely a technical document.

        I don't question the truthfulness of the statement. I just found it funny, the juxtaposition of practical advice and a random political statement in what was largely a technical document.

        3 votes
  19. crulife
    Link
    If you have a gun intended to actually be used against a human being, it's much much more probable that you will use it against somebody who isn't a far right extremist. So from a leftist point of...

    If you have a gun intended to actually be used against a human being, it's much much more probable that you will use it against somebody who isn't a far right extremist. So from a leftist point of view it doesn't make any sense to get one.

    Unless you're actually planning a violent, extremely well-planned revolution. Which it doesn't sound like you're doing.

    1 vote
  20. [3]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. Akir
      Link Parent
      I never said anything about civil war. People can be in political danger without civil war happening.

      I never said anything about civil war. People can be in political danger without civil war happening.

      9 votes
    2. norb
      Link Parent
      Just curious what your line is for this type of speculation? Cause I can see some things stirring now that might get us there. Federal government withholds disaster aid to a blue state. Said state...

      Just curious what your line is for this type of speculation? Cause I can see some things stirring now that might get us there.

      1. Federal government withholds disaster aid to a blue state. Said state says "We're not kicking in federal tax money anymore." What happens then? Take the money by force? Let it slide and hope no other states follow suit?
      2. Anti-abortion state sends state troops to arrest abortion providers in another state that allows it. Federal troops get involved to "quell an active conflict between states."
      3. Similar to the above, federal troops sent in to "round up illegals" while state forces protect them.

      We live in a time in history where non-violent political action has become the norm, so we have a hard time fathoming it going the other way. Our system is also built upon "norms of behavior" that are not actually encoded into law. Only "norms" keep us in a non-violent state. And "norms" can be ignored at will (as proven by ... well everything over the last week to 10 years)

      5 votes