These days this is not done with bullets but with carefully planned public manipulation through media and social networks.
And if it really comes down to bullets, the government owns a lot bigger guns than you do.
They don't tend to use direct force either, but there are private militias...defending yourself from a gang or haywire corp is also an important thing.
People like to take the big argument, defense from govt, and tear it down from a broad level, and then ignore the many other lethal threats posed. There have been a couple shootings in recent memory, where citizens quickly resolved the matter far faster than law enforcement could have hoped.
Situations too, where men armed with axes etc. went on killing sprees in other countries and mostly people were unable to respond.
I don't think everyone should bear arms, or even that it should be common, but I do think the right to defend yourself is a pretty inalieable right. If gun ownership can help with that, then by all means...
In other words, as the state declines to protect you, you have a better claim on the natural right to protect yourself.
Just wondering if you have any evidence to back up this assertion.
Telling people crime isn't happening or that they're just imagining it's going unprosecuted is a form of gaslighting. I'm again mass incarceration, but I think prosecutorial discretion is a sneaky/bullshit way of going about decarcerating and fixing the justice system, and I think it's going to lead to a dangerous backlash. So is lying to people who can see reality with their own eyes.
Please.
Just link a study or something. FWIW I think it's wild I'm being accused of gaslighting over a simple request. Isn't that DARVO?
The assertion for which you asked evidence is not a correlation between prosecutorial policy ("fully prosecuting criminals") and crime rates, but rather the existence of the policies themselves. So, there's no need for a "study": the prosecutors put it down in writing (and those policies then get reported by the media).
For the record, I support some of these prosecutorial reform efforts, but through legislation which eliminates things like "add-on charges", not by prosecutors selectively deciding who will and won't get them.
But, since you asked, here's just a few -- and I'll make the "simple request" to you to do the "hard work" of a web-search if you want more than these: try Chesa Boudin, Larry Krasner, etc.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg announces he is directing his staff either not to prosecute, accept "community diversion" in lieu of prosecution, or at least not to seek any jail time, for a slew of offenses, including e.g. armed robbery:
https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Day-O...
Media coverage of same:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-dist...
https://nypost.com/2022/01/04/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-to-st...
LA district attorney George Gascón, upon being elected, issued a memo modifying the policy to reduce the charging of violent criminals:
https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRE...
Media coverage of same:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/crimes-las-prosecute
And while anecdotal, here's evidence of the implementation of that policy, a letter from Union Pacific railroad to the DA's office, complaining that when their agents apprehend criminals robbing trains, they are not fully prosecuted:
https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@newsinfo/document...
HN thread on same:
It sounds like you and I are actually quite close in belief that systemic reforms are necessary but that undertaking them by prosecutorial fiat is a mistake. You'd probably appreciate this analysis:
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/the-paradox-of-pr...
It's ironic that some of the most vociferously anti-gun people in the US are also the ones with the clearest view of the police as an armed gang. But absent armed police and without the right to protect themselves, what do they think will fill the vacuum?
Trust makes the society safe. When there is a lack of trust, careful security measures can be used to compensate. But security can also lead to an arms race that makes everyone less safe, as measures that improve someone's safety may have a negative effect on others.
The stoic natural rights theory on which the US is founded definitely tips the balance towards self-defense over the collective. It’s the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.
The historical evidence shows that countering a police state / authoritative government with violence/force is less effect than with non-violence:
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650
Since 1900, if a movement used violence in their methods for change they had a success rate of 25%; movements with non-violence had success 40% of the time. Further, most movements who did use violence to have a 'change of government' were much more likely to end up with authoritative government.
How does owning a firearm protect you from state violence without an implied threat to shoot police?
I don’t get the obsession behind open carry though. What good is people walking around in shopping malls with large semi automatic rifles on their back?
This is a phenomenon I've head described as "nutpicking." Take the absolute worst of a demographic and then go "why are you all like THAT?"
Claiming US gun culture is all about going to the mall open-carrying a semiauto rifle is on the same level as claiming gay men all prance around in assless chaps and leather. No, they don't, and it shouldn't be any mystery why claiming that is so offends people.
And I believe this is the experience of the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US.
It occurs to me I haven't seen any estimates for how many people open carry on a daily basis. (You would think SOMEONE would collect that data SOMEWHERE.)
The states are sort of (in)famous for how many people own firearms, but I assert the number of people who open carry on a daily (or weekly) basis is much smaller than the number of people who own firearms.
I'm going to stop short of accusing nojvek of nutpicking, but encourage them to look around. The stats I've seen are that one in three Americans owns a firearm. If you were walking around and one out of three people were open carrying... well... I think that would be a little unusual unless you were in a gun show or at a shooting range.
Gun-culture in America can be weird, but it's often portrayed as being weirder than it actually is.
[Edit: also. how did we go from cable modems to guns so quickly?]
I was kind of freaked out but everyone else operated as if it was normal.
I found that pretty jarring. Was only there for a few days but almost everyday I saw someone with a gun on them on the streets.
Yes my sample size is low, but it’s still a strong memory in my mind.
More to the point, none of the few nutjobs who insist on doing this has ever actually carried out a mass shooting. At least not to my knowledge. Generally, if you find yourself around someone who's carrying openly, you can be sure you're less likely to be shot than you would be just walking around a random mall by yourself.
Firearms can, in many situations, allow you to enforce your will over that of other people who may be intent on harming you or others.
The thing I never quite understood is why so many of us believe they'll encounter those situations walking to train station in the urban core.
So in one sense, I think I can understand the thinking behind it but at the same time think people are mistaken for how often you'll need to shoot someone while walking home in the city or in the burbs.
That being said... I worked part time as an agent for a bail bondsman to pay for college and frequently carried large sums of cash with me through bad neighborhoods. I open carried with the approval of the sheriff's office and municipal police departments largely as a reminder that I could shoot back. But I never had to. The last person a potential criminal wants to shoot at is their bail bondsman... I never drew, aimed or fired my firearm in two years of working that job. In many ways I think it was like part of a "costume" that communicated I had the weight of social convention on my side.
[edit: Just to clarify, I think there's an equally strong argument to be made about freedom of movement as a societal benefit, and an individual right, that outweighs the harms caused by humans driving their own cars.]