[andromedavision]

> Reasonable people could certainly debate what sort of standards those would be

Sounds reasonable to me. I would however, also ask you to consider that excessive control leading to difficulty in accessing guns for personal protection is dangerous as well. The question becomes how much power do you want to give government over this issue.

A lot of gun owners cite the concerns that they have over the emergence of a tyrannical government. With guns, these citizens can protect themselves more adequately.

You don't want a scenario where the government of the day rounds up a bunch of deplorables/undesirables and sets out to massacre them. This has happened before and I'd bet that guns in the hands of each of these individuals would have accorded them a fairer chance at defending themselves.

As far as deaths go, governments have killed more people than a few gun toting individuals who clearly have mental issues have. Governments are more dangerous.

[tempestn]

I don't think it's fair that you're getting down votes here without replies. I didn't down vote, but I'll explain why I disagree.

It is most likely true that governments have killed more people than individuals with guns acting alone, although I don't think it's as lopsided as you suggest. As an example, the United States death toll in all of World War II was about 400,000. Currently there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US every year.

The more significant issue though, is the claim that a prevalence of guns would prevent government tyranny to the extent that it outweighs the damage they cause. Speaking of the US specifically, that would first require that the US would have a government at some point that was intent on killing hundreds of thousands of its own people. But not only that, it would require an armed insurrection against that government to actually be successful in stopping it. I'm no fan of the current US government's policies or effectiveness, but both of those events seem astronomically unlikely anytime in the foreseeable future. It is incredibly unlikely that the US government would morph into a murderously tyrannical regime. And if that somehow did happen, it is also unlikely that individual citizens with guns could do much to stop it. On the other hand, it's a fact that access to guns causes tens of thousands of deaths in the US every year.

I just can't see any reasonable argument that the likelihood of the emergence and defeat of a tyrannical government is so great that it is remotely likely to outweigh the existing annual gun death toll. Not to mention that I'm not even suggesting preventing gun ownership, just sensible restrictions. In order to drive a car you need to prove that you know the rules of the road and that your vision is sufficient (or that you will wear corrective lenses). Your car must be registered and in good working order. I'm in favor of a similar licensing process for guns: a thorough, standardized test to prove that you are of sound mind and are aware of proper safe use and storage. Registration so that law enforcement can be aware of potential threats, and can track weapons used in crimes. Restrictions on how guns can be legally stored and transported, and where they can be taken. I'm not an expert, and I could certainly be convinced I'm off on the specifics, but opposing any restrictions on ownership whatsoever seems an untenable position to me.

[dcow]

I agree with you completely except that I caution people not dismiss the idea of an armed rebellion so easily. It’s really easy to fool ourselves into thinking bad shit doesn’t happen and we are “beyond violence”. I want to believe it too, but let’s just say for example Trump starts rounding up “illegals” and shooting them if they refuse to leave our country. Just think about that. At some point many of us would break and as we see our friends and families torn apart we would be willing to die to defend their humanity. Hopefully we’d have some of the military on our side, but we’d likely break out in civil war. Our military is powerful but not as big as many people assume. It can’t do shit to a bunch of people in concrete urban structures with AKs what makes anyone think 100MM citizens with weapons wouldn’t be effective in seizing control back from a tyrannical leader?

Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

I know you’ve heard it before. But I honestly worry we’re suffering from a “times are good why do I need all these liberties my ancestors fought for” phase and it would be really dumb to forfeit them all and then end up back at square one with an actual actively oppressive system governing us and no way to defend ourselves against it.

[andromedavision]

> Trump starts rounding up “illegals” and shooting them if they refuse to leave our country

I'd say that that's a valid I'd concern even as a Trump supporter. All governments are capable of copious amounts of nastiness. Today, my guy could be in power, tomorrow someone else's will be. Therefore, systems that take this into account would perform better than those that don't.

[andromedavision]

> I don't think it's fair that you're getting down votes here without replies.

Why, thank you!

> Currently there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US every year.

Interesting stat. I'll look into this more and see where the rabbit hole leads me. But as I gather so far, the data supports my claims more than yours. Case in point from Wikipedia:

In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.

This again points to mental health issues more than guns being the problem. These obviously unwell individuals would have found other ways to exit a world they no longer could bear being in. Sad affair but true. So unless the mental health is addressed, if your goal was to prevent deaths, you would not solve much by taking guns away.

> It is incredibly unlikely that the US government would morph into a murderously tyrannical regime.

Funny that you say that because these same words echo what I heard a holocaust survivor said in a WWII documentary I was watching less than a week ago. The Jews did not think that nazi Germans would ever do what they did to them. They kept saying that Hitler was a passing fad and that in no time (3-4 yrs), he'd be out of power and normalcy would resume. I'd like to think that at the rate with which polarization is happening today, it isn't unfathomable that a murderous regime COULD take power. Even if they weren't murderous, there are other ways to exercise tyranny making death seem a more befitting (or may be even noble) endeavor as opposed to living on one's knees, so to speak.

It never seems dangerous at first. I'd posit that that's why we get insured; we assume that things can be calamitous even when there's little evidence to suggest the same.

That's the difference between my view point and yours. I have a theory on how this ties in to why most preppers are right leaning as opposed to left leaning i.e. perception of risk but I won't get into that right now. The point is, even if there's a small chance of that occurring, because the downside of not being ready is so huge, we must pull all stops to remain safe.

> opposing any restrictions on ownership whatsoever seems an untenable position to me.

I'm glad you see it that way, but a non-trivial number of anti-gun proponents don't see it that way and instead want guns taken away from the bulk of current owners if not all(civilians that is).

[tempestn]

It's true that most of the gun deaths (about 2/3) are suicides. If you do some research on that though, I think you'll find significant evidence that it's not actually true most of those people would have found another way to do it. There are varying degrees and durations of suicidal intent, and a major factor of whether someone follows through is access to means. So although it's certainly a reasonable assumption that a suicidal person would just find other means if they didn't have a gun, the evidence shows that access to guns really does make a big difference to suicide rates.

I absolutely hear you that tyranny does happen, and is sometimes horrible. I would point to the Chinese persecution of their Uyghur population currently. However, when you multiply the odds of something like that happening in a country like the US, times the odds that an armed rebellion would be successful, times the odds that such an event would save more lives than it took (certainly many people would die in an armed overthrow of the US government), the combined probability is certainly small. Then comparing that to the lives that sensible gun laws would save every year, it seems hard not to support some kind of structure.

Often, yes, giving up freedom is dangerous. But society can't exist with 100% freedom either, because one person's freedom must be balanced against another's rights. There are already many things we agree that people can't do in a civilized society because the harm to others outweighs the infringement on personal freedoms. For instance, we need to accept property rights. As mentioned, we need licensing to drive a vehicle. We are required to pay taxes so that common services can be funded. Some oversight on gun ownership seems, to me, a sensible part of that list. Of course, that's not to say that increased security for decreased freedom is always good; it depends on the particulars of the case.

Edit: btw I absolutely understand the desire to be prepared for extreme events. I have several months of food and supplies stored in case the big west coast earthquake or another disaster hits. I can understand people's desire to own guns for protection, although I don't myself. I don't believe that any of that needs to conflict with sensible laws around registration, licensing, and safe use.

[andromedavision]

> I would point to the Chinese persecution of their Uyghur population currently.

TIL about this. Thanks.