Guns, Guns Everywhere

[Simon_Jester]

The problem with this from the point of view of talking about gun ownership as a right is that... well. For any given level of gun ownership, we have to balance the benefit (deterring criminals) against the cost (more random quarrels that turn deadly because of guns- and see recent cases in Florida for examples).

As long as we restrict gun ownership to a minority who have time, money, and aptitude to pursue special training, the cost is low- but in that case, "the right to keep and bear arms" isn't really being treated as a right at all.

[Purple]

Personally I've always thought the stronger argument for "right to bear arms" has little to do with one's safety and more to do with the definition of "citizenship."

If I am a full citizen in my society, with good standing, can't I be trusted to own weapons? Why would my own society need to control and distrust me to the extent of banning that? Am I assumed to pose some sort of threat to the state or to the people?

That's another thing that puzzles me. Americans always seem to be chasing after rights for its own sake. It seems that their line of thought is different from what we in Europe used to. To give a rough description, very rough:

Europe: If I need something than I want the right to own it. Otherwise I don't want that right as it would be of no use to me. Thus if people in society don't need something then society does not need to allow it. Ergo if the society is safe enough that you don't need firearms for self defense than there is no reason to allow you to own them.

America: Who gives a dam if I need it. I want freedom to have it just because.

You always seem to start from the assumption that the default state is for something for it to be allowed and that the state has to make a case before it can forbid it. Where as we start from the assumption that there is no default state and one should think about the issue properly.

That's my impression at least.

I have a gun and you do too = you still probably are not going to attack me if you are looking for targets. Equal chances are not what the average riffraff are looking for.

Thing is, chances aren't equal. Even if you are an experienced gun owner it's not going to be easy for you to just pull a gun on someone and shoot him dead. Where as professional criminals who do that stuff for a living don't have these problems. So as gun ownership rises you are simply going to see a change in the demographic of the criminal element as they become more and more akin to medieval bandits who would just shoot you with a crossbow from an ambush and take your stuff.

The situation of high crime and high gun ownership I am talking about is pretty much like the wild west when you think about it.

The above is not to push any particular policy, I just take issue with your idea above.

Can't hold it against you either way.

[Lonestar]

It just strikes me (as a European) as a completely alien mind-set that people feel a genuine need to carry a lethal weapon around with them, the fear of crime/blacks/poor people/democrats/gays in America must be immense, and going from the other thread about fear of police you must have no confidence in your police service.

There is a line of thought that if Matthew Shepard had been armed he wouldn't have ended up bound to a fence post in rural Wyoming. It's hardly a "lol Republikkans carry" thing. Even people who are against general ownership of guns, including some Prominent Democrats have carry permits.

There's a phrase used in the shooting community "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

Surely the shear level of inconvenience (I'm guessing here, please correct me if I'm wrong) of carrying a lethal weapon on a day to day basis must be huge compared to the perceived gain?

You don't even notice you're carrying it after awhile.

I would love to hear what reasoning you use for carrying from board members, how does it impact your day to day life when you decide to carry a weapon?

I work mids and sometimes go on midnight strolls on not-worknights. My neighborhood has had a lot of Somalis get into legal trouble on a fairly regular basis. I've also been in a few situations out of my domicile where I wished I had a firearm handy(late at night in winter camping and having a poacher sneak up on my tent).

It's insurance. Same reason why I have car insurance.

Do you carry it everywhere or just when going to certain areas?

If I could, I would carry it everywhere. I work in Maryland and it does not reciprocate VA carry permits(carry laws vary wildly from state to state, some don't reciprocate carry permits). We've had armed individuals try to get into our building before, but the gun doesn't even leave my apartment when I go to work. MD has been known to run plates and when they get a hit on a out of state permit holder pulling over the vehicle and doing a search for a firearm.

If I know I'm going to be drinking I remove it and place it in the trunk of my car.

The comparison to a mobile also amused me; why not carry around a grappling hook or an anti-venom kit?

How often do you need to use a grappling hook? Defensive gun use is far, far more common then needing to use a grappling hook.

And a lot of places don't have venomous snakes.

And Zed flat out couched the mobile use as "admittedly it's mono-use compared to a cell phone", I don't know why people keep harping on it.

[Lonestar]

Thing is, chances aren't equal. Even if you are an experienced gun owner it's not going to be easy for you to just pull a gun on someone and shoot him dead. Where as professional criminals who do that stuff for a living don't have these problems. So as gun ownership rises you are simply going to see a change in the demographic of the criminal element as they become more and more akin to medieval bandits who would just shoot you with a crossbow from an ambush and take your stuff.

(1) "Professional Criminals" tend to target soft targets precisely because they don't want to make things more difficult then they already are for them. Even the introduction of looser legal concealed carry has noticeable effects. Here in the DC area we have a problem with sexual harassment/assault on the Metro, and one of my female coworkers had a incident that led to her making a police report. The incidents are far less common on the VA portions of the Metro, and while that may be because Northern Virginia is wealthier than DC and PG County, the officer told her it was because riders in VA are far, far more likely to be armed. Anecdotal, I know.

(2)"So as gun ownership rises you are simply going to see a change". Gun ownership doesn't mean squat. Ease of legal concealed carry does. Here is a gif that shows how during the last 25 years or so the US went from a largely "May-issue/No issue" situation to "shall issue". By the way, it correlates with a steep decline in violent crime in the US. Obviously correlation isn't causation, but presumably if more people were carrying legally and that caused criminals to shoot first, we shouldn't be seeing as steep a decline(and maybe even a increase).

[Tribble]

Canada has been experiencing a sharp decline in violent crime as well, despite the fact that we have no right to bear firearms.

American attitude seems to be "give everyone a gun, and then we'll be safe." Whereas the general Canadian/European attitude is "let's strive to build a society where guns and weapons aren't necessary." Two different mindsets I suppose.

[Lonestar]

Canada has been experiencing a sharp decline in violent crime as well, despite the fact that we have no right to bear firearms.

American attitude seems to be "give everyone a gun, and then we'll be safe." Whereas the general Canadian/European attitude is "let's strive to build a society where guns and weapons aren't necessary." Two different mindsets I suppose.

Well, Purple seemed to be arguing "more guns in public areas=more violence", which has not been the case in the US.

[Purple]

Canada has been experiencing a sharp decline in violent crime as well, despite the fact that we have no right to bear firearms.

American attitude seems to be "give everyone a gun, and then we'll be safe." Whereas the general Canadian/European attitude is "let's strive to build a society where guns and weapons aren't necessary." Two different mindsets I suppose.

Well, Purple seemed to be arguing "more guns in public areas=more violence", which has not been the case in the US.

No, I have been arguing that "more guns in public areas != less violence && when violence happens it will be deadlier"

[Zeropoint]

and on two occasions I had to, how can I put it? Persuade some unpleasant characters to leave the vicinity of the apartment building while ostentatiously holding something heavy.

In other words, you used a weapon to AVOID violence, by presenting a credible threat and making yourself an unappealing target. That's exactly how firearms are most commonly used for defense, and exactly why most people want to carry them. No sane person WANTS to shoot anyone.

[Beowulf]

Well, Purple seemed to be arguing "more guns in public areas=more violence", which has not been the case in the US.

No, I have been arguing that "more guns in public areas != less violence && when violence happens it will be deadlier"

The problem with that argument is that the correlation is roughly "more guns != more violence". Or at least not "more guns in public areas=more violence".

--

Many people have a genuine preference for believing they are safe. Now obviously that has limits (they're not, in quite a few places). But one of the reasons for "no guns in this location" laws is to ensure that there is a sense of safety. Or at least safety from actual deadly firearms, in that particular place. So that the people who do not want to spend all their time pinging their surroundings with metaphorical radar can cease to do so.

The problem with trying to make certain places gun-free, but not having any actual enforcement of such (like bars and schools), is that those that bother to obey the law will be be gun-free, but those that don't won't. So you end up with a soft target. The vast majority of active shooter (that term annoys the shit of me, BTW) incidents have occured in gun-free zones for a reason. If you disarm those who go to locations that serve alcohol, you don't just disarm those who drink, but those who go as DD's, or are going for reasons other than drink (live music, restaurants that serve alcohol, etc). So you may end up creating a sense of safety, but it's a false sense of safety.

I distinguish from the preceeding locations such as stadium and court rooms, where they may be gun-free, but they're enforced with metal detectors and other searches, and have armed guards. Because then you have a real sense of safety, instead of a false one.

[Formless]

American attitude seems to be "give everyone a gun, and then we'll be safe." Whereas the general Canadian/European attitude is "let's strive to build a society where guns and weapons aren't necessary." Two different mindsets I suppose.

I don't think that's truly the "European" mindset, though. Why do European police still carry guns? Obviously they think they have a need for them. From my side of the pond, it seems far more like the "European" mindset is that guns aren't just a symbol of authority, but a tool of authority. And it seems like this is less a mindset and more something taken for granted, possibly for a very long time given my understanding of history.

FYI, the quote marks are there because 1) I know for a fact that not all Europeans share that mindset (besides certain Nordic members of this forum this German youtube fellow comes to mind) 2) it doesn't seem to be restricted to Europe.

Personally, I think both mindsets you describe are overly simplistic; the latter is dully utopian and unrealistic (hence the existence of self defense schools in Europe; there is a market for such skills everywhere), the former being a joke that somehow a few people (but a minority, I suspect) take seriously. For the most part, they both sound like sound bites to me as someone who owns no guns but knows his way around them.

[Simon_Jester]

Personally I've always thought the stronger argument for "right to bear arms" has little to do with one's safety and more to do with the definition of "citizenship."

If I am a full citizen in my society, with good standing, can't I be trusted to own weapons? Why would my own society need to control and distrust me to the extent of banning that? Am I assumed to pose some sort of threat to the state or to the people?

That's another thing that puzzles me. Americans always seem to be chasing after rights for its own sake. It seems that their line of thought is different from what we in Europe used to. To give a rough description, very rough:

Europe: If I need something than I want the right to own it. Otherwise I don't want that right as it would be of no use to me. Thus if people in society don't need something then society does not need to allow it. Ergo if the society is safe enough that you don't need firearms for self defense than there is no reason to allow you to own them.

I'm not sure how much of that is Europe and how much is you; you've always struck me as rather insensitive to the concept of "rights."

America: Who gives a dam if I need it. I want freedom to have it just because.

You always seem to start from the assumption that the default state is for something for it to be allowed and that the state has to make a case before it can forbid it. Where as we start from the assumption that there is no default state and one should think about the issue properly.

That's my impression at least.

Again, I think it's just you, or partly you. But to analyze deeper:

Independent political thought in America began with the idea that the British colonial government was doing things to the American colonies that they didn't like, and the Americans had no say in the matter. This was irrespective of whether the actual British policies were that onerous, or whether they were unprecedented, or whether the British meant the American colonies to suffer as such. That was not the point.

What turned affairs in the American colonies from political protests to an armed revolution capable of fielding corps-sized armies with independent artillery and naval auxiliaries was the perception that under British rule, the US did not have certain rights. Among them, the right to a serious role in the decisions about how they would be governed.

They were being told to shut up and submit like good little children. But no, they argued, they were not children, they were adults with responsibilities and interests of their own. The Americans, in their own eyes, had legitimate claims and needs and every reason to protect those claims and needs. But to do that they needed certain rights- including some very abstract ones like the right of self-governance, because an allegedly "good" colonial governor was not going to act in a way that would be satisfactory to them, and without self-governance they had no means of recourse for dealing with that.

So, to sum up, the American revolutionaries seized on the concept of rights because they saw rights as a useful shorthand for their oppressor's attempt to deny them agency and power over their own affairs.

They were not the only ones- there's a reason why the French Revolution started out trumping a "Declaration of the Rights of Man." The idea that men have rights is a vital counter to almost every form of tyranny, because without the idea of rights, then one can always argue "but this tyrannical act is a good one, why are you opposing it?" The problem is that the tyrant and his supporters will always, always claim to be acting in good ways, even while they commit terrible acts of destruction and chaos that hurt literally everyone else.

Rights present an absolute and philosophical defense against oppression, rather than a sporadic, opportunistic defense. Therefore, people who see themselves as potential victims of tyranny tend to seize on them. Look at the Germans and their focus on human rights post-World War II; it's the same process.

You, Purple, don't seem to feel that way... but then, you are a lot less afraid of tyranny than most people I know.

[Scorpion]

Okay, against my better judgement, I will don my flame-retardant suit and throw my two cents in:

First, about myself: I'm a gun-nut in a country where, to get a gun, you have to either:
a) have to be a registered hunter;
b) have to be a register target shooter; or
c) can apply for a firearm licence with the National Police, where you have to justify the reasons why you need a gun for self-defence (like, for instance, a high-risk profession). Even then, your application can be denied of various grounds. And the guns are limited to .25ACP pistols.
Having said that, I know my way around a gun (former Portuguese Army) and though I want to own loads and loads of guns, I don't know if I should be able to.

Now, having said that, American gun culture has always perplexed me (well, at least the version that filters through our media and t3h intarwebs, included conversations with members of such culture).

I will be forever fascinated by the atavistic, reflexive defence of the right to bear arms, regardless of the consequences or the implications. I mean, what kind of society sees things like Newton and Columbine happen and decides that the answer to gun violence is more guns?

It's not that they want to have guns for self-defence that bothers me, it's the fact that they inflexibly oppose even the most common sense restriction to the right to bear arms, accepting nothing short of totally unrestricted weapon use. (One person with whom I discussed this issue, when asked if the right to bear arms also applied to nuclear weapons, responded: "If the government has it, we should have it too.")

Before I got my driver's license, I had to have a medical and psychological check-up to see if I was sound of body and mind, followed be approximately three months of learning the Road Code (literal translation, I don't know how you call it in the US), after which I had to pass an exam that required a MINIMUM score of 85% to pass. Then and only then did I got in a car and learnt to drive it. After one more month of driving lessons, I took the driver's exam and I finally became a certified driver.

A car is a means of transportation. Only by it's misuse can you kill someone. A gun is a weapon. It's sole purpose is to kill. The potential harm cause by it's misuse (or intentional use in bad faith) is much, much, MUCH greater. Then how can acquiring the right to use the second be any less demanding and gruelling to get than the right to get the first?

There's a concept that resonates with me in this matter: the monopoly of violence by the State. The talk is by a Dutch General. He talks about how in the past few centuries, we have de-legitimized violence as a means to solve disputes by imposing sanctions on those who use it in that way. And I have to say I agree with him. When a policeman uses a gun, you know he has been trained to use the gun in the most effective manner and only in last resource.

Now, if there was an armed teacher in Newton Elementary School, could he have stopped the shooter? Probably. But consider the following: could have Adam Lanza acquired those weapons if the requirements and checks for a gun permit were more stringent (on account of him being mentally ill)? And if you allow concealed everywhere, how many arguments will escalate into gunfights that otherwise would've petered off? Especially in bars, my god, the second thing that every responsible gunner learns (after "always treat your gun as if it was loaded") is NEVER MIX GUNS AND ALCOHOL!!!
Letting people have guns without any restrictions is like letting the kids play squash in the barn where you store your nitroglycerin.

"But if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns!"
Nice soundbyte, the logic looks convincing, but I don't buy it, if only for the fact that small nogunz nations like Portugal haven't descended into somalia-like levels of anarchy. Guns don't poof into existence, they have to come from somewhere. They can only have three proveniences. They can be:
a)legally purchased;
b)stolen; or
c)smuggled.
Now, logically, if you limit the number of weapons that can be sold, you limit the number of weapons that can be stolen. Of course, limiting gun use and ownership has no influence on what is smuggled across borders.
Here in Portugal, from time to time the Police ship out apprehended guns to scrapyards to be destroyed. The vast majority of those guns are stolen (or sold...) hunting shotguns, the most easillly accessible type of firearms in my country. Coming a distant second are stolen .25ACP pistols and alarm pistols (illegally) adapted to fire .25ACP.

"But tyranny!"
As one Portuguese political commentator whose identity now escapes me once said, never has a democracy turned dictatorial because of excess of authority. And the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. The Nazis didn't get to power because the Weimar Republic had too much power. They got into power because they could mantain "order" where the Weimar Republic couldn't. Here, the fascists took power after a series of weak and unstable governments. Everywhere in Europe, the pattern is the same: weak democracies replaced by authoritarian dictatorships. Exactly because our state is democratic, it must have the monopoly of violence. Educated and motivated voters are a much better weapon against tyranny than rifles ever were.

Okay, I'll go now because it's 3AM and I'm tired.

[Formless]

Yeah, Scorpion, I think you definitely are getting a filtered perception of American gun culture. Problem being that the people who hold those views are, like Evangelicals and Libertarians, the loudest crowd with access to the media's ears. The NRA, for instance, doesn't represent all gun owners, but they have the money to throw at getting their opinions into the public ear. Take a look at the laws in most places, and you will see where your stereotypes most apply, and where you will see more tempered mindsets. None of which will contain laws restricting carry to .25ACP...

I mean, what kind of society sees things like Newton and Columbine happen and decides that the answer to gun violence is more guns?

That's only the extreme NRA card carrying Right; most people would prefer guns stay away from schools (that is, high schools and lower: college students are considered adults, so gun fans here would prefer they get the same carry rights as any other adults, I suspect). Though I believe the argument that would be made is that teachers and administrators shouldn't be denied the right, and could help stop these issues. Its not exactly my argument, but it is the one I have heard. Alternatively, schools should have security guards. When I was in high school, iirc there was a cop stationed at the school most of the time; unfortunately, his job had more to do with drug laws than safety, and there was only one of him.

Also, to give credit where it is due exposure to guns at a young age does demystify them significantly, so exposing kids to guns in a safe environment isn't bad either. Some schools I personally know about used to have target ranges for things like boy scout and shooting club use, before that became NPC. Lots of people like them, hate them, are ambivalent about them, but many people who aren't part of our gun culture know nothing about them, effecting our gun politics for the worse (example: suppressors are restricted here, but outright required for hunting in Europe. Everyone seems to have latched onto the image of them as evil assassins tools, as opposed to the European viewpoint that suppressors are a safety item. Ain't it ironic?).

Thing about Columbine is, gun fans are tired of hearing about it. Video game fans doubly so, because the media vultures mine the shit out of any such event for the shooter's dirty laundry so that they can air it on national television, and guess what always makes it on the list? I'll let this video explain why this is all bad for everyone. Guns and games weren't the cause at Columbine, in fact the shooters' original plan was a bomb/set of explosives that they failed to construct properly. It was bullying and a school culture that tends to turn a blind eye to the behavior of jocks and athletes because they bring prestige to the school. And for other school shootings, they have as much to do with poor quality public services like mental health (hell, the penal system is shit too, I've heard it described as college for professional criminals) as it has to do with access to firearms. In that sense, some of the measures you describe Portugal taking are quite reasonable, and I don't think many people would disagree with them. Accessibility is a factor, certainly, to deny it would be foolish. But such spectacular shootings happen rarely despite the coverage they always receive, and as you can see there are bigger issues that people want dealt with (tax money, you know? Well, American political memes do interact, after all), while the media only wants to cover hot button topics. So the reaction you've seen is largely backlash due to sheer frustration with the way the topic gets handled in public discourse.

Before I got my driver's license, I had to have a medical and psychological check-up to see if I was sound of body and mind, followed be approximately three months of learning the Road Code (literal translation, I don't know how you call it in the US), after which I had to pass an exam that required a MINIMUM score of 85% to pass. Then and only then did I got in a car and learnt to drive it. After one more month of driving lessons, I took the driver's exam and I finally became a certified driver.

You should ask around about what some of the forum's members had to do to get their carry licenses. It might surprise you.

A car is a means of transportation. Only by it's misuse can you kill someone. A gun is a weapon. It's sole purpose is to kill.

Uh, not exactly? Most people really just want range toys that they can play with, or an material investment that they can say they have and show off to their friends (guns retain their value for years, after all). From my experiences, carrying guns in everyday life seems to be a minority use for most owners. Also, there is hunting, which is bigger here in the states than in Europe, and there are places where some of the wildlife is genuinely dangerous (usually the more remote areas, especially Alaska). Guns were invented to be a deadly weapon, but purpose is what you do with it, and a lot of people just want to fling lead pellets down a range in a safe manner.

Also, slight aside, do realize that cars kill an inordinate number of people every year? Objectively, more people than are shot. They are probably the most dangerous possession the average person owns, and suburban life in the States is nearly impossible without a car and drivers license.

There's a concept that resonates with me in this matter: the monopoly of violence by the State.

Yeah, well, that concept does NOT resonate well here in the States because of the mythicized nature of our Revolution. Ironically, you can possibly lay some of the blame on our military culture, since many gun owners have a military background. People have not forgotten that lethal force is necessary to overthrow a government; and even if the force our government has available has increased thousandfold since the beginning, I personally know people who have explicitly told me they want revolution to be a plausible option for the American populace should we need it in the future. Hence what I said about the "European" viewpoint on guns. It seems to be a major difference, that authorities are allowed without question to have lethal force everywhere, but the question of citizens having access to it gets very different answers in our countries. But there is more to say on that. Follow the asterisk *

When a policeman uses a gun, you know he has been trained to use the gun in the most effective manner and only in last resource.

Not our police. I'm sure other members can link you to examples of American cops proving that they are terrible shots by hitting bystanders. Arguably, there are many private owners here who have tons more practice with their guns. They just don't have the same set of responsibilities as a cop (unless they are one).

And if you allow concealed everywhere, how many arguments will escalate into gunfights that otherwise would've petered off?

Sober? Probably 99%. Its an untested situation that lots of people would escalate in such situations, especially if they were part of "gun culture" for a long time, since a young age. People who don't respect what a gun can do are more likely to brandish them at inappropriate times, in my estimation. Something else to consider about American gun culture, I suppose.

As one Portuguese political commentator whose identity now escapes me once said, never has a democracy turned dictatorial because of excess of authority.

To put it bluntly, that commenter is a moron. What do you think defines a dictatorship? Absolute authority. How a dictator obtains it is a manner of execution, but the end state is what Americans take issue with. *And when American gun owners feel like they aren't especially dangerous just because they own the mystical killing tools, it should surprise no-one that they worry about the state clamping down on their rights or even threatening to take away their investments on what they perceive as shitty justifications. If the owner is adult and not especially dangerous, why not let them have it? That's the American attitude about guns if I had to define it. Hence the things Lonestar has been telling Purple. These facts are important to people.

So, yeah. Whatever you might disagree with, this should at least help you understand American gun culture better.

And the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. The Nazis didn't get to power because the Weimar Republic had too much power. They got into power because they could mantain "order" where the Weimar Republic couldn't. Here, the fascists took power after a series of weak and unstable governments. Everywhere in Europe, the pattern is the same: weak democracies replaced by authoritarian dictatorships. Exactly because our state is democratic, it must have the monopoly of violence.

The Nazis took power because the population gave them massive support, even after Hitler took power and abolished the democratic process, not because of a series of weak governments or some BS like that. Voters have a responsibility in the democratic process; what you seem to be implying is that the voters' perceptions in Germany of previous governments during the early 40's somehow nullifies the decision that they made, which lead to a fascist government. That's just nonsense, and does not lead to the conclusion you are drawing. I would challenge this line of reasoning even outside the context of the gun debate, because it seems completely at odds with how Democracy works.

[Simon_Jester]

Now, having said that, American gun culture has always perplexed me (well, at least the version that filters through our media and t3h intarwebs, included conversations with members of such culture).

I will be forever fascinated by the atavistic, reflexive defence of the right to bear arms, regardless of the consequences or the implications. I mean, what kind of society sees things like Newton and Columbine happen and decides that the answer to gun violence is more guns?

Well, my perspective is a bit odd- I don't own any firearms and would probably never bother to get one except as more of a historical artifact- something like a C96 Mauser, and I know how stupidly expensive they are.

Shooting? I'd be as likely to take up fencing.

So I can speak to the political philosophy of it, but not much else.

From my point of view, cases like Columbine and Newton occur for reasons that have very little to do with guns as such; the "mad bomber" is just as much of an archetype as the "mad shooter." Meanwhile, far more people die every year of other kinds of criminal violence, so it's not unreasonable to set gun policy with an eye to those other sorts of violence.

I suspect that whether many admit it or not, the defense of the right to bear arms really does come down to the "doesn't society trust me as an upstanding citizen" aspect. There is a very long history of second-class citizens (peasants, serfs, freed slaves) being barred from carrying weapons, for fear they would strike out at their "betters." Meanwhile, aristocrats got to carry weapons as a symbol of their own authority and power, and ability to deal violent death to a personal enemy. Aristocrats get weapons because they are trusted and respected; peasants don't because of the fear that they'll start randomly mugging their betters and rebelling against the system.

So when people who view weapon ownership as part of the rights of full citizenship hear "sharply restrict ownership," they hear a form of serfdom in the wings- their status as citizens being reduced to let them do what they do.

It's not that they want to have guns for self-defence that bothers me, it's the fact that they inflexibly oppose even the most common sense restriction to the right to bear arms, accepting nothing short of totally unrestricted weapon use. (One person with whom I discussed this issue, when asked if the right to bear arms also applied to nuclear weapons, responded: "If the government has it, we should have it too.")

In all fairness, some people are bluntly out of their minds and I know it.

There's a concept that resonates with me in this matter: the monopoly of violence by the State. The talk is by a Dutch General. He talks about how in the past few centuries, we have de-legitimized violence as a means to solve disputes by imposing sanctions on those who use it in that way. And I have to say I agree with him. When a policeman uses a gun, you know he has been trained to use the gun in the most effective manner and only in last resource.

This sometimes contradicts

Now, if there was an armed teacher in Newton Elementary School, could he have stopped the shooter? Probably. But consider the following: could have Adam Lanza acquired those weapons if the requirements and checks for a gun permit were more stringent (on account of him being mentally ill)?

Yes, because he actually shot his own mother in the head repeatedly and stole her firearms, rather than getting them legally.

And if you allow concealed everywhere, how many arguments will escalate into gunfights that otherwise would've petered off? Especially in bars, my god, the second thing that every responsible gunner learns (after "always treat your gun as if it was loaded") is NEVER MIX GUNS AND ALCOHOL!!!
Letting people have guns without any restrictions is like letting the kids play squash in the barn where you store your nitroglycerin.

I'm sincerely inclined to agree with this concern- I think there's a very important place for time, place, and manner restrictions on when it is proper for citizens to travel armed.

"But if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns!"
Nice soundbyte, the logic looks convincing, but I don't buy it, if only for the fact that small nogunz nations like Portugal haven't descended into somalia-like levels of anarchy. Guns don't poof into existence, they have to come from somewhere. They can only have three proveniences. They can be:
a)legally purchased;
b)stolen; or
c)smuggled.
Now, logically, if you limit the number of weapons that can be sold, you limit the number of weapons that can be stolen. Of course, limiting gun use and ownership has no influence on what is smuggled across borders.

The US has hundreds of millions of guns already owned by private citizens; how are we supposed to limit the number of guns available for theft and legal sale in any effective way?

"But tyranny!"
As one Portuguese political commentator whose identity now escapes me once said, never has a democracy turned dictatorial because of excess of authority. And the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. The Nazis didn't get to power because the Weimar Republic had too much power. They got into power because they could mantain "order" where the Weimar Republic couldn't. Here, the fascists took power after a series of weak and unstable governments. Everywhere in Europe, the pattern is the same: weak democracies replaced by authoritarian dictatorships. Exactly because our state is democratic, it must have the monopoly of violence. Educated and motivated voters are a much better weapon against tyranny than rifles ever were.

Mass civilian gun ownership isn't really an effective counter to tyranny anymore, mostly because any tyrant worth his salt can get a large fraction of the armed public to serve as his Party militia to protect him against the rest of the armed public.

[Formless]

I suspect that whether many admit it or not, the defense of the right to bear arms really does come down to the "doesn't society trust me as an upstanding citizen" aspect.

I'd say you hit it on the head in as concise a manner as possible, for once. I'll add that I think what a lot of gun fans really hate most is when their very interest in guns is implied to make them untrustworthy. Alternatively, one way of interpreting the tyranny and rights related arguments is that some of the rhetoric and propaganda against gun owners imply that all of society is inherently untrustworthy, with all the political ramifications that carries, particularly in what is supposed to be a democratic society. If you will, think of it as Thomas Hobbes (the "European" attitude) vs Locke and Rousseau, if you know the relevant political philosophy. Not to slander Rousseau for comparing him to NRA nuts, its just that there is something inherently insulting and suspicious about being told that most or all human beings are flatly untrustworthy of taking risks.

[Lonestar]

Before I got my driver's license, I had to have a medical and psychological check-up to see if I was sound of body and mind, followed be approximately three months of learning the Road Code (literal translation, I don't know how you call it in the US), after which I had to pass an exam that required a MINIMUM score of 85% to pass. Then and only then did I got in a car and learnt to drive it. After one more month of driving lessons, I took the driver's exam and I finally became a certified driver.

A car is a means of transportation. Only by it's misuse can you kill someone. A gun is a weapon. It's sole purpose is to kill. The potential harm cause by it's misuse (or intentional use in bad faith) is much, much, MUCH greater. Then how can acquiring the right to use the second be any less demanding and gruelling to get than the right to get the first?

As long as we're taking the "cars=guns" metaphor to the max:

In many jurisdictions in the US, you don't actually need a license to drive. What you need a license for is to drive on public roads. This is so farmers can have their kids drive trucks on large property or what have you.

Likewise, in many jurisdictions in the US, you don't need a license to possess a gun. What you do need a permit for is to carry it in public. Admittedly, this varies from $5 and a background check, to some training+ background check, to "you need what we think is a good reason/need to bribe a politician". In the state of Virginia it's background check + going to a handgun safety/training course approved by the state. The state will waive the training requirement if you are former or current active military.

Interestingly, some states(California) that have very strict rules regarding concealed carry and lack of ability for the proles to get it legally have very lax "rural carry" laws. The underlying assumption seems to be that you are far more likely to need a handgun in the woods than where 95% of all crime happens(urban areas). It's something I've noticed here; my ex would ask me why I didn't carry in the woods on weekend-long hikes but I would in urban areas. For a lot of people "rural carry" is okay but not urban carry, even in gun-friendly states like Virginia.

I happen to think some training/background check should be a requirement for publicly carrying, I don't like the "Vermont Carry" way of doing things.

[Scorpion]

Thing about Columbine is, gun fans are tired of hearing about it. Video game fans doubly so, because the media vultures mine the shit out of any such event for the shooter's dirty laundry so that they can air it on national television, and guess what always makes it on the list? I'll let this video explain why this is all bad for everyone. Guns and games weren't the cause at Columbine, in fact the shooters' original plan was a bomb/set of explosives that they failed to construct properly. It was bullying and a school culture that tends to turn a blind eye to the behavior of jocks and athletes because they bring prestige to the school. And for other school shootings, they have as much to do with poor quality public services like mental health (hell, the penal system is shit too, I've heard it described as college for professional criminals) as it has to do with access to firearms. In that sense, some of the measures you describe Portugal taking are quite reasonable, and I don't think many people would disagree with them. Accessibility is a factor, certainly, to deny it would be foolish. But such spectacular shootings happen rarely despite the coverage they always receive, and as you can see there are bigger issues that people want dealt with (tax money, you know? Well, American political memes do interact, after all), while the media only wants to cover hot button topics. So the reaction you've seen is largely backlash due to sheer frustration with the way the topic gets handled in public discourse.

Far from implying that guns are the cause of such shootings, I was merely pointing out that more strict gun laws might have prevented them from acquiring the methods to carry them out. I'm an avid videogamer myself and it angers me to no end whenever some pigbrained airhead tries to pin this on videogames. "It was because guns!" "No, it was because Marilyn Manson!" "No, it was homossex DESTROYING FAMILIES BAAAAD, RAAAAAHH!" These things are complex, with complex causes. Trying to pin it on soundbites is stupidity, pure and simple.

A car is a means of transportation. Only by it's misuse can you kill someone. A gun is a weapon. It's sole purpose is to kill.

Uh, not exactly? Most people really just want range toys that they can play with, or an material investment that they can say they have and show off to their friends (guns retain their value for years, after all). From my experiences, carrying guns in everyday life seems to be a minority use for most owners. Also, there is hunting, which is bigger here in the states than in Europe, and there are places where some of the wildlife is genuinely dangerous (usually the more remote areas, especially Alaska). Guns were invented to be a deadly weapon, but purpose is what you do with it, and a lot of people just want to fling lead pellets down a range in a safe manner.

I agree, if I ever get a gun, it will probably only ever be a range toy. When I said a gun's only purpose was to kill, I meant what it was designed for: to inflict enough trauma on a living being that it stops breathing. In the same way, a car was designed to do one thing: to transport people and cargo from point A to point B. However, many people use it in ways other than their intended purpose. For some, they are status symbols. For others, cars are a hobby and they tinker and tune them.

Also, slight aside, do realize that cars kill an inordinate number of people every year? Objectively, more people than are shot. They are probably the most dangerous possession the average person owns, and suburban life in the States is nearly impossible without a car and drivers license.

Actually, that is exactly why the requirements to have a license are so stringent. Here in Portugal, the number of car accidents and road deaths was so large that it was dubbed "a hidden civil war". Policemen and lawmakers cracked down on drunk driving and reinforced drivers ed, and fortunately the number of accidents and deaths has been decreasing this past decade.

As one Portuguese political commentator whose identity now escapes me once said, never has a democracy turned dictatorial because of excess of authority.

To put it bluntly, that commenter is a moron. What do you think defines a dictatorship? Absolute authority. How a dictator obtains it is a manner of execution, but the end state is what Americans take issue with.

You either misunderstood me or I didn't explain myself well.
The authority I was talking about was always in the context of a democratic state. In a democratic state, the state's authority is always limited by citizen's rights. If a democratic state lacks the capability to enforce it's monopoly of violence, it will be unable to stop tyrannical forces from using violence to impose their will. And time and time again, that's the pattern you see: impotent or unstable democracies followed by dictatorship. And not just Germany: you see it in Portugal, Italy, China, Spain...

If the owner is adult and not especially dangerous, why not let them have it? That's the American attitude about guns if I had to define it. Hence the things Lonestar has been telling Purple. These facts are important to people.

The European attitude is more like "guns are dangerous, so you have to prove you are responsible enough to have them".

[Patroklos]

I could say the same thing about speech or voting. Many tyrants have.

[Purple]

I could say the same thing about speech or voting. Many tyrants have.

But you would not be right, where as he is.

This reply actually perfectly represents the point I was trying to make about the difference in mindsets. Basically in any discussion about rights there will always be the two extreme positions of total liberty and an unconditional ban and a huge gray area of regulation. Here in Europe we tend to prefer to stay in that gray area because we look at the issue with an unbiased eye. Americans on the other hand seem to consider "total liberty" to be the desired state and see any regulation as the unwanted extreme.


That's where I feel all the arguments which boil down to "Oh, you don't trust me. Is that it?" come from. Arguments which I find to be illogical simply because the obvious answer is: "Of course not! Governments are not children on the playground and should not operate on the principal of optimistic unconditional trust."

For lack of a better description it just seems to me that americans tend to take the issue as something deeply personal. As if the state was in direct interaction with them as an individual and targeting them individually instead of them just being another number in the faceless masses of society.


I hope this does not come off too much like rambling. It's just really difficult at this point to describe what I am trying to say for some reason.

[Simon_Jester]

You either misunderstood me or I didn't explain myself well.
The authority I was talking about was always in the context of a democratic state. In a democratic state, the state's authority is always limited by citizen's rights. If a democratic state lacks the capability to enforce it's monopoly of violence, it will be unable to stop tyrannical forces from using violence to impose their will. And time and time again, that's the pattern you see: impotent or unstable democracies followed by dictatorship. And not just Germany: you see it in Portugal, Italy, China, Spain...

You have missed a key lesson of history.

The first thing we notice is that when democracies are overthrown by tyrants, the tyrants must use organized violence. The Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, and so on must be not only armed, but organized and loyal to a single leader.

So the danger is not that the state might lose its monopoly on violence. The danger comes if the state loses its monopoly on paramilitary organization.

It's irrelevant whether individuals have the power to commit violence. That power is literally inalienable because you cannot take it away from human beings except by putting them in straitjackets. What matters is whether people have the power to create their own armies, armies that might conceivably be capable of overpowering the rest of the citizens and forcing them into obedience.

Stop people from making their own armies, and you no longer have to worry about a tyrant overthrowing the democratic process by force, even if every single citizen is still armed to the teeth with deadly weapons.

If the owner is adult and not especially dangerous, why not let them have it? That's the American attitude about guns if I had to define it. Hence the things Lonestar has been telling Purple. These facts are important to people.

The European attitude is more like "guns are dangerous, so you have to prove you are responsible enough to have them".

And my counter is that you are essentially saying to me "Prove you are worthy to be more than a (prosperous) serf. Prove that you are one of the trustworthy elite, who can be trusted to control themselves. Prove that you are NOT part of the useless, irrelevant mass of the lumpenproletariat who need to be controlled."

Which I might reasonably find to be an unhealthy attitude for a government to take- more on that below.

That's where I feel all the arguments which boil down to "Oh, you don't trust me. Is that it?" come from. Arguments which I find to be illogical simply because the obvious answer is: "Of course not! Governments are not children on the playground and should not operate on the principal of optimistic unconditional trust."

Okay. From this, I would tend to conclude that governments must say "Real citizenship belongs only to the minority we trust. Those are the people we really think are qualified to participate in setting the tone of our society, who have the right to be respected and entrusted with important personal decisions. Everybody else is a second-class 'citizen,' with rights extended to them only because we're being polite about it, and they have little or no standing to make their own decisions."

But this model of citizenship is at odds with the preferences of most of the Western world for universal rights, and for the idea of legal equality among legal adults.

For lack of a better description it just seems to me that americans tend to take the issue as something deeply personal. As if the state was in direct interaction with them as an individual and targeting them individually instead of them just being another number in the faceless masses of society.

I hope this does not come off too much like rambling. It's just really difficult at this point to describe what I am trying to say for some reason.

I quite agree. I expect that the government will operate with some respect for the dignity of the individual. And yes, that is personal; I find the prospect of a government that rejects my dignity to be personally offensive.

The dignity of the individual is vital to any concept of having a decent life in a society sane people would want to live in. This is in fact the basis of some of our most important rights- such as privacy; your right to privacy stems from your dignity as an individual, your right to be treated with a measure of respect by virtue of being a human being.

[Scorpion]

I could say the same thing about speech or voting. Many tyrants have.

The statement is being made by a democratic government elected by popular vote with freedom of assembly and speech that is concerned with the welfare of it's citizens. Your point is void.

[Purple]

So the danger is not that the state might lose its monopoly on violence. The danger comes if the state loses its monopoly on paramilitary organization.

Not nesecerily. Whilst it takes a paramilitary organization to bring a government down or endanger it you can still have a lot of problems and misery with a large enough amount of uncoordinated violence. It's the classic wild west scenario where everyone is a vigilante and people shoot each other down over feuds not because there is an organized movement to do so but because the government is too weak to provide an effective alternative.

I know this is not directly related to what you were quoting. But I figured it would be important enough to mention.

And my counter is that you are essentially saying to me "Prove you are worthy to be more than a (prosperous) serf. Prove that you are one of the trustworthy elite, who can be trusted to control themselves. Prove that you are NOT part of the useless, irrelevant mass of the lumpenproletariat who need to be controlled."

...

Okay. From this, I would tend to conclude that governments must say "Real citizenship belongs only to the minority we trust. Those are the people we really think are qualified to participate in setting the tone of our society, who have the right to be respected and entrusted with important personal decisions. Everybody else is a second-class 'citizen,' with rights extended to them only because we're being polite about it, and they have little or no standing to make their own decisions."

But this model of citizenship is at odds with the preferences of most of the Western world for universal rights, and for the idea of legal equality among legal adults.

That is the point though. It's not about trust. Trust is an emotion that exists only on the interpersonal level. Governments are organizations established by the people who interact with said people through legislation. There is no and should be no trust involved. That's why we call it a social contract.

When it comes to the government-citizen relationship the government is basically the equivalent of a corporation and the voter is the equivalent of a worker who is also a shareholder. The former strives to work in the benefit of the later by doing what they feel is best. And if the results fall short they get ousted and replaced. In turn the later contributes their resources and effort into the system and occasional exercises their right to vote for or against them depending on the results of their actions. There is absolutely no trust involved other than the trust that both sides will hold up to their end of the contract.

I quite agree. I expect that the government will operate with some respect for the dignity of the individual. And yes, that is personal; I find the prospect of a government that rejects my dignity to be personally offensive.

But why do you see it as a rejection of your dignity in any way, shape or form? You can't reasonably expect any organization, especially the state to address your needs or even consider you to be an individual.

To give an analogy. Do you also feel personally insulted by the teacher for whom you were just another child in the class? Or the doctor for whom you are in the end just another patient he has to process using the same procedure he does for everyone else? Or for the bus driver who picks you up along with the hundreds of others he will be picking up that day?

The dignity of the individual is vital to any concept of having a decent life in a society sane people would want to live in. This is in fact the basis of some of our most important rights- such as privacy; your right to privacy stems from your dignity as an individual, your right to be treated with a measure of respect by virtue of being a human being.

Well sure. But the problem is that people extend this to all or nothing.

[Beowulf]

The "American" (which is not shared by all Americans) view is that the government doesn't have a monopoly of force. It has a monopoly on force that is not for self defence against an imminent threat. You have a right to life. You have a right to defend your life. You have a right to the tools necessary to effectively defend your life. If you cannot have the tools necessary to effectively defend your life, then do you really have the first (a right to life)? Or do you merely have a life until someone decides to take it from you? Are you just a serf?

I agree, if I ever get a gun, it will probably only ever be a range toy. When I said a gun's only purpose was to kill, I meant what it was designed for: to inflict enough trauma on a living being that it stops breathing. In the same way, a car was designed to do one thing: to transport people and cargo from point A to point B. However, many people use it in ways other than their intended purpose. For some, they are status symbols. For others, cars are a hobby and they tinker and tune them.

Some guns are not designed for killing living targets. Olympic target pistols and benchrest rail guns. Some cars are not designed to transport people and cargo. They're simply designed to go as fast as possible

[Simon_Jester]

The "American" (which is not shared by all Americans) view is that the government doesn't have a monopoly of force. It has a monopoly on force that is not for self defence against an imminent threat. You have a right to life. You have a right to defend your life. You have a right to the tools necessary to effectively defend your life. If you cannot have the tools necessary to effectively defend your life, then do you really have the first (a right to life)? Or do you merely have a life until someone decides to take it from you? Are you just a serf?

This sums up very well why a lot of people (me included) think that some kind of "right to bear arms" is included in the basic "full citizenship" package.

So the danger is not that the state might lose its monopoly on violence. The danger comes if the state loses its monopoly on paramilitary organization.

Not nesecerily. Whilst it takes a paramilitary organization to bring a government down or endanger it you can still have a lot of problems and misery with a large enough amount of uncoordinated violence. It's the classic wild west scenario where everyone is a vigilante and people shoot each other down over feuds not because there is an organized movement to do so but because the government is too weak to provide an effective alternative.

A widely armed populace does not create such a weak government, though.

While I may object to the fear of a 'Wild West' atmosphere emerging in specific places where guns or immaturity are common, I don't think American society as a whole is in danger of becoming vigilante-dominated. Not unless we just randomly stop funding the police.

And my counter is that you are essentially saying to me "Prove you are worthy to be more than a (prosperous) serf. Prove that you are one of the trustworthy elite, who can be trusted to control themselves. Prove that you are NOT part of the useless, irrelevant mass of the lumpenproletariat who need to be controlled."
...
Okay. From this, I would tend to conclude that governments must say "Real citizenship belongs only to the minority we trust. Those are the people we really think are qualified to participate in setting the tone of our society, who have the right to be respected and entrusted with important personal decisions. Everybody else is a second-class 'citizen,' with rights extended to them only because we're being polite about it, and they have little or no standing to make their own decisions."

But this model of citizenship is at odds with the preferences of most of the Western world for universal rights, and for the idea of legal equality among legal adults.

That is the point though. It's not about trust. Trust is an emotion that exists only on the interpersonal level. Governments are organizations established by the people who interact with said people through legislation. There is no and should be no trust involved. That's why we call it a social contract.

You're missing the point.

By fixating on the word "trust" you miss the point of the exercise here: a healthy, free society must empower all or nearly all its people as full citizens, making only limited and highly specific exceptions.

Now, we can debate whether "not allowed to own guns" translates as "is not being treated like a full citizen."


But it's foolish to assert that there is no such thing as 'trust' extended by the state to an elite. We can easily point to a lot of societies that were fiercely stratified between a respected/trusted/free minority and a despised/enslaved/carefully monitored mass.

One-party dictatorships tend to work this way: the path to privilege is Party membership, especially senior Party membership. Granted that senior Party members are themselves monitored by the secret police- but they are privileged and have more rights when it comes to, say, participating in political discourse.

Military aristocracies work like this- they have an armed elite with status, rights, and an enforceable concept of "honor..." and unarmed peasantry with none.

Many 'democratic' nations were like this in the 19th century: to vote you had to be rich, male, a member of a certain ethnicity, and so on. Everyone else was a second-class citizen.

"Trust" is just one of the words I use for the relationship between the governing mechanism and this elite class that gets the special privileges. And I submit that the usage is de facto correct even if, in your political philosophy, there is no such thing as the state "trusting" an individual.

When it comes to the government-citizen relationship the government is basically the equivalent of a corporation and the voter is the equivalent of a worker who is also a shareholder. The former strives to work in the benefit of the later by doing what they feel is best. And if the results fall short they get ousted and replaced. In turn the later contributes their resources and effort into the system and occasional exercises their right to vote for or against them depending on the results of their actions. There is absolutely no trust involved other than the trust that both sides will hold up to their end of the contract.

Ah, but all the things we know and contemplate as "rights" are themselves part of the terms of the contract.

If my contract with my government does not extend a certain basic respect for my dignity as a human being, I want a new contract! If you have trouble grasping the reason why this is desirable, read more Kafka.

I quite agree. I expect that the government will operate with some respect for the dignity of the individual. And yes, that is personal; I find the prospect of a government that rejects my dignity to be personally offensive.

But why do you see it as a rejection of your dignity in any way, shape or form? You can't reasonably expect any organization, especially the state to address your needs or even consider you to be an individual.

The government should observe certain practices and honor certain rights, so as to respect the individual dignity of all its citizens. Even very superficial interactions can preserve and respect dignity; this isn't about expecting the government to provide personalized service.

The dignity of the individual is vital to any concept of having a decent life in a society sane people would want to live in. This is in fact the basis of some of our most important rights- such as privacy; your right to privacy stems from your dignity as an individual, your right to be treated with a measure of respect by virtue of being a human being.

Well sure. But the problem is that people extend this to all or nothing.

All or nothing of what?

[Purple]

A widely armed populace does not create such a weak government, though.

While I may object to the fear of a 'Wild West' atmosphere emerging in specific places where guns or immaturity are common, I don't think American society as a whole is in danger of becoming vigilante-dominated. Not unless we just randomly stop funding the police.

I newer said that the police has to be armed though. What we are talking about is a monopoly on violence. The term only means that fundamentally the state is the only one with the legal right to use violence to enforce things. A state can achieve this by using no violence at all just as long as the population does not use it either.

The scenario I am talking about is what happens when the state is seen as unable to do this not because it lacks a sufficient number of rifles per officer but because its ability to enforce its own laws is too weak. Be that because there is no money to pay the police force, no way to enforce laws over a wast territory or just unwillingness.

You're missing the point.

By fixating on the word "trust" you miss the point of the exercise here: a healthy, free society must empower all or nearly all its people as full citizens, making only limited and highly specific exceptions.

But why? That simply does not sound logical at all. A healthy free society must seek to better the life of its citizens and not pursue freedom for freedoms sake. And freedoms should be regulated to optimize this. That's why we regulate things like who gets to drive, how old you have to be to drink etc.

But it's foolish to assert that there is no such thing as 'trust' extended by the state to an elite. We can easily point to a lot of societies that were fiercely stratified between a respected/trusted/free minority and a despised/enslaved/carefully monitored mass.

The only trust that exists is that toward the means of legal coercion. As in I trust my government to step down if I vote them down and they trust me to obey the laws they make.

One-party dictatorships tend to work this way: the path to privilege is Party membership, especially senior Party membership. Granted that senior Party members are themselves monitored by the secret police- but they are privileged and have more rights when it comes to, say, participating in political discourse.

Military aristocracies work like this- they have an armed elite with status, rights, and an enforceable concept of "honor..." and unarmed peasantry with none.

Many 'democratic' nations were like this in the 19th century: to vote you had to be rich, male, a member of a certain ethnicity, and so on. Everyone else was a second-class citizen.

"Trust" is just one of the words I use for the relationship between the governing mechanism and this elite class that gets the special privileges. And I submit that the usage is de facto correct even if, in your political philosophy, there is no such thing as the state "trusting" an individual.

I don't really agree with your rhetoric as I feel that you are basically justifying the use of a word where it does not belong through long winded explanations that make little sense.

Ah, but all the things we know and contemplate as "rights" are themselves part of the terms of the contract.

If my contract with my government does not extend a certain basic respect for my dignity as a human being, I want a new contract! If you have trouble grasping the reason why this is desirable, read more Kafka.

But you do get the option of a new contract. You get it every time you vote and every time someone goes to protest or overthrow their government.

The government should observe certain practices and honor certain rights, so as to respect the individual dignity of all its citizens. Even very superficial interactions can preserve and respect dignity; this isn't about expecting the government to provide personalized service.

That's how you make it sound though.

All or nothing of what?

Rights. Either all rights are inalienable and you can't ever compromise or it's immediately a Stalinist dictatorship. That's the kind of rhetoric that I keep hearing.

The "American" (which is not shared by all Americans) view is that the government doesn't have a monopoly of force. It has a monopoly on force that is not for self defence against an imminent threat. You have a right to life. You have a right to defend your life. You have a right to the tools necessary to effectively defend your life. If you cannot have the tools necessary to effectively defend your life, then do you really have the first (a right to life)? Or do you merely have a life until someone decides to take it from you? Are you just a serf?

A better question would be to think about the society that makes you need to defend your self. A functional society is one where you are not supposed to ever come into such a situation in the first place. Where I am from, the very notion that one might feel the need to provide for his own defense against criminals is while not unimaginable well into the "doomsday cook" category.