Are you talking about sex trafficking, mass shootings, deaths from alcohol related accidents, deaths from drug usage, sexual assault from drug usage, crimes committed by those on probation, crimes committed by people from certain cross sections of society, or crimes committed because we don't have a camera in every room of every house that is monitored?
Because most every bad crime out there can be reliably estimated and has ways of being prevented. The question is at what cost? We could prevent the vast majority of crimes committed by criminals released from prison by having all felonies punished by life without parole. But is that really reasonable? We could cut down on sexual abuse of children by outlawing any single adult from ever being alone with a child, regardless of relationship. But is that really reasonable?
And I highly suspect that there is no consensus on what liberties are acceptable to exchange for safety.
by "preventable" I presume you mean prevented by relinquishing all citizens rights and the rights of their descendents permanently to the government.
I'm not debating gun laws, Im pointing out how readily it seems people are willing to relinquish their rights in one case vs another which have remarkably high similarities.
How can you keep illussion that you'll be able to defend anything with guns against US army? Because them you'll be fighting, because they are the actual guvnment. And these guys train every day how to kill people armed with guns without getting shot. And they got pretty good at that.
> How can you keep illussion that you'll be able to defend anything with guns against US army?
One would assume that should things get bad enough for an actual civil war, some percentage of military would defect rather than fight their own.
One might also look to recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam to see what a determined populace can do to resist.
Given there has already been one Civil War in US history, things don't look horribly great. It is also a very different country today now than it was then, so who knows how things would actually go.
> One would assume that should things get bad enough for an actual civil war, some percentage of military would defect rather than fight their own.
I'd say if US gov had a plan of oppressing US citizens they'd just ban guns first. It's kinda hard to start civil war over this.
So instead of civil war you'd have hundred or few hundreds nutjobs with guns vs. US Army who might not feel particularly supportive of civilians disobeying direct order to give away their guns. Obeying is kinda their favorite thing.
> One might also look to recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam to see what a determined populace can do to resist.
Let's look at more recent history of US military achievements:
You wan't to be on the loosing side of similar conflict?
> Given there has already been one Civil War in US history, things don't look horribly great. It is also a very different country today now than it was then, so who knows how things would actually go.
Last civil war was about right to own black people. They guys who really wanted to keep owning them actually managed to incite civil war, even had army with similar tech level and still lost. Can you imagine same thing happening about right to own guns?
The reason government lets you keep your guns is not that it's afraid of you. The reason is that it is not and doesn't mind all that much if some peasants die.
> I'd say if US gov had a plan of oppressing US citizens they'd just ban guns first. It's kinda hard to start civil war over this.
Which would itself be sure to spark widespread civil unrest, if not actual revolt. Even in the "reasonable European countries" compliance with bans[0] are comically bad.
> So instead of civil war you'd have hundred or few hundreds nutjobs with guns vs. US Army who might not feel particularly supportive of civilians disobeying direct order to give away their guns. Obeying is kinda their favorite thing.
That's a horrible characterization of the state of the US military. In case you weren't aware, there's a reason officers pledge to the Constitution and not the president.
> Let's look at more recent history of US military achievements:
Yeah, how long have we been bogged down in the Middle East? You want to live in a country with 10+ year long civil war? Nasty as politics are these days, you think it's just going to be "Gun Nut vs. US Military" - no, it's going to be "Gun Nut drags liberal gun ban supporter into the street and executes him." as well. It's not going to be some magical, nice, clean rout like you're implying.
> even had army with similar tech level and still lost.
The numbers weren't even close on the rebel side.
> Can you imagine same thing happening about right to own guns?
For all the talk of "hunter's rights" and "sportmans," the reason for the 2A is explicitly to fight governmental tyranny. It is so the common man can fight. The government revoking that right will easily spark mass violence.
> The reason government lets you keep your guns is not that it's afraid of you. The reason is that it is not and doesn't mind all that much if some peasants die.
> Even in the "reasonable European countries" compliance with bans[0] are comically bad.
In Poland, country of 36 million citizens there are around 20-30 cases of homicide or attempted homicide with firearms per year and another 20-30 cases of causing bodily harm using firearm which might be shooting someone or just hitting him with a gun. So compliance must not be that bad.
> In case you weren't aware, there's a reason officers pledge to the Constitution and not the president.
And what's in the constitution about president and obeying him? Do? Do not? As you fancy?
> "Gun Nut drags liberal gun ban supporter into the street and executes him."
Sure. I just listed the sides that will be doing all the shooting, sniping, bombing, mortaring, drone-striking and gassing not all other collateral damage. You are right that it won't be nice or clean but it will be quick and remembered exactly the way US gov writes it down in history books.
> The government revoking that right will easily spark mass violence.
Did you notice how gov overreacted about occupy wall-street? Do you think how strong and fast or even preemptively will it react to possible armed movement that might want to oppose enacted law?
Best you can count on are small, split up pockets of resistance looking like crazies for the people outside.
> Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
As are you. I just have trouble understanding how can anyone think he can fight government of one of most advanced nation states with a gun.
Exactly. Just look at how the US government quickly and easily wiped out all those insurgents in the Middle East. Oh wait... it's been a decade and a half since the attack on the World Trade Center, and they're still there making trouble.
If you're fighting the government head on in a conventional war, and the military sides with the government against the citizens, then of course you'll lose. So don't do that. Armed citizens defending themselves and their families on their own turf against modern militaries using asymmetric warfare techniques have actually proven pretty effective.
In any case, you're assuming an all-out civil war where the government has free reign to send in the military against its own citizens with no concern for political fallout, using whatever level of force is needed to achieve their objective. In practice they don't have that much freedom even when dealing with a foreign group intent on causing us harm. Under more realistic circumstances, the mere possibility of armed resistance serves as a major deterrent to tyranny vs. the ease with which unarmed civilians can be rounded up for "re-education".
Not sure about wiping them out but US got pretty good at killing them and not getting killed themselves in the process.
> Armed citizens defending themselves and their families on their own turf against modern militaries using asymmetric warfare techniques have actually proven pretty effective.
Examples? Preferably of last decade or two because modern military technology is ... well modern. And your future insurgency won't be countered even with today technology but future one.
> In any case, you're assuming an all-out civil war where the government has free reign to send in the military against its own citizens with no concern for political fallout, using whatever level of force is needed to achieve their objective. In practice they don't have that much freedom even when dealing with a foreign group intent on causing us harm.
If you own a gun to shoot your foot or spouse, government will happily restrict itself from interfering with your freedoms. Try to use it go gang up with few dozen of hundreds of citizens and oppose some tax regulation or something government actually cares about. You'll have FBI on your ass before you ramp up, and if that's not sufficient, yes, also military. And don't be so sure they'll restrict themselves then, especially if you fire even single shot at them. Even pointing your gun in their general direction could be enough to lift any restrictions.
> Under more realistic circumstances, the mere possibility of armed resistance serves as a major deterrent to tyranny vs. the ease with which unarmed civilians can be rounded up for "re-education".
I wonder why so many western countries don't descend into tyranny even though their citizens don't own guns.
>>Try to use it go gang up with few dozen of hundreds of citizens and oppose some tax regulation or something government actually cares about. You'll have FBI on your ass before you ramp up, and if that's not sufficient, yes, also military.
IIIRC the Bundys did EXACTLY that and US government is having a tough time convicting them.
>>I wonder why so many western countries don't descend into tyranny even though their citizens don't own guns.
Maybe because America acts as a guarantor of security via NATO and thousands of other ways?
They are not. They happen with such regularity that you can reliably estimate them per year. They are empirically preventable.