[Cyril_HN]

That's not the point. The point is that it means a government must resort to violence and it may be unwilling to do so. Whereas if people don't have guns, then the government can be incredibly overpowering without having to step over the threshold of violence, which makes it more likely.

[brokenmachine]

Governments have no problem "stepping over the threshold" and using violence. If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken.

[noxer]

There is no such things as "the government who enforces laws" its people who enforce laws and they wont if they dont agree and dont have a monopoly on violence. Also "hastily-written or unfair laws" wont be enacted if there is a realistic chance you pay with your life for doing so.

The guns are there for when the legal way to solve stuff no longer works and laws are no longer of any meaning. Saying its against the law to use them or that law enforcement will enforce any law no matter what is pure ignorance. Civil wars happens and if there is one you better hope both sides have guns because else its not a war its a takeover.

[tekknik]

> Civil wars happens and if there is one you better hope both sides have guns because else its not a war its a takeover.

And depending on the relations the US has with 2-3 particular nations we would likely see an invasion thrown on top.

[candiodari]

Yes, but there is a very low limit to the number of people that can be on the other end of the violence, and with guns, that limit is even much lower.

When push comes to shove, guns allow normal people to escalate violence to the point the government stops MUCH quicker and faster than without guns.

[brokenmachine]

>Yes, but there is a very low limit to the number of people that can be on the other end of the violence, and with guns, that limit is even much lower.

I don't really understand what you mean here?

You pull your gun out and threaten a government representative, and you will be dead or in handcuffs within 30 minutes.

Maybe your idea of civilian government overthrow could come true if you could somehow gather thousands of people with guns who are against the government simultaneously, but other than that, it's over. And even if you do manage to gather those people, it's over when the national guard arrives.

Escalating violence doesn't work when you're massively outgunned, or do you have your own Apache helicopters, armed drones and tanks? Do you think they will hesitate to attack armed terrorists trying to overthrow the "democratically elected" government?

I'm not American so please explain what I'm missing here.

[anonfornoreason]

Think less on quick-draw-shoot-the-cop sort of scenarios, and more along the lines of a "the freedom fighters generally live in these hills, and they like to blow us up with bombs or shoot us from far away when we aren't suspecting" situation.

If there was a tyranny and a rebellion, the cops are going to think twice about going out and about without full force since they might be ambushed.

Alot of this sort of situation: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54137838

[candiodari]

That's one thing. But there's another. I've done years of fighting sports training with half the local (sort-of, they get called out pretty far, sometimes even flown somewhere) SWAT team. Including the commander. If you think even such a team will go charging into what might be an ambush, you're insane.

It does not work like in the movies. If you're in your house and someone is trying to kill you with a weapon, it will take the cops 15 minutes to your door ... and 30 minutes before they come in, minimum. If a unit has been lost (meaning a cop already got hurt), it will take hour before they come to the door, minimum. Some places (such as the court house) have different rules.

As soon as a unit has been lost, they will FIRST do a cost-benefit analysis of retaliating at all. And, especially in large cities, that analysis will regularly come up with something akin to "just let them deliver the drugs and do ... nothing" or "just let them go". Even when non-lethal (and "non-lethal" as in a knife) weapons are used they may refuse. You see, not getting maimed (even a little bit) is a thoroughly essential part of having any sort of career, and the treatment wounded cops get certainly does not justify self-sacrifice. The kinder logic is that criminals don't stop after one crime. If it's needed to stop them, there will be another chance.

Working this way means that for even a large metro area they can maybe handle 5 to 10 serious situations at any one time. Police weapons, even the big ones, do not defeat even relatively small determined militias. And the police will abandon neighbourhoods long before it comes anywhere near this point.

If they truly the think the situation will escalate without end, they may go in. That, by the way, generally means snipers, not knocking down the door. If they don't think the situation will escalate, or if there's too many people, or ... they will just let it be.

[weimerica]

> If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken.

The government order is acted on by a person, at the end of the day. During the lockdowns my City authority closed all public parks including the one across the street from my house. They also retasked all Parks & Recreation employees to sit in the parks and yell at anyone using the parks. Many citizens, myself included, outright ignored the P&R staff and continued to make use of the park under the threat of "calling the police." Even after the lockdown ended and parks re-opened, the staff at our local park continued with their own "closure."

However, at no point did officers respond let alone use state-sanctioned violence against citizens. That a government flunky gives an order does not mean it will be enforced let alone result in violence from authorities.

Ultimately, this is a continuous function rather than a boolean as you're implying. Citizen ownership of arms helps juice that function in our favor.