False dichotomy, corporations are another (somewhat powerful entity).

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...

Guess what these axe wielders would have done if they had access to guns.

The recent surge in violence as DAs have stopped fully prosecuting criminals -- including those who commit violent gun crimes -- has blurred the line between criminal violence and state violence. That renews the argument for self defense.

In other words, as the state declines to protect you, you have a better claim on the natural right to protect yourself.

> DAs have stopped fully prosecuting criminals -- including those who commit violent gun crimes

Just wondering if you have any evidence to back up this assertion.

Please, don't gaslight. Read the daily police blotter of arrests, re-arrests, missed court dates and releases without bail in Portland, Oregon, for example. We have people who've been arrested 17 times for stealing 17 different cars in the span of a year, who still haven't shown up for their first court date, but never spend more than a couple hours in jail. And that's because we have a DA who outspent his opponent 20 to 1 in the election with donations from the Open Society Foundations.

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.

> gaslighting

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?

I think the issue is that it's such an easy web-search, your failure to do it and instead make a "simple request" appears to present an implication that the phenomenon in question doesn't exist, i.e. gaslighting.

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:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29985568

I appreciate you taking the time to do this, explain that the existence of these policies itself is not in doubt, and clarify the difference between asking for proof of their existence versus proof of their effects on society. Because I had started to respond, but I decided it was bad for my mental state to engage further.

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...

I think you’re missing the nuance here. If I can protect myself using a weapon, I don’t need to vote for mass surveillance to protect me. The ability to engage in shootouts with the police isn’t what prevents the formation of a police state. The problem with a police state is that state violence becomes a way to exercise political power.

Precisely. Policing in any country is always a mix of public service and protection racket. A police monopoly on protecting people from other people, or society from itself, leaves no safety for anyone.

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?

People don't agree on whether there is a positive or negative correlation between security and safety; whether increased security makes the society more or less safe. Some people also think that everyone interested in security (including the police, the military, and people buying guns for self defense) is inherently suspicious.

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.

> 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 hard part is stopping the self-defense at armed individuals. And not escalating from armed individuals to armed gangs. From armed gangs to criminal organizations capable of challenging the state. From criminal organizations to regional warlords replacing the state. And from regional warlords to conquerors establishing a new state.

> The problem with a police state is that state violence becomes a way to exercise political power.

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.

Other than the obvious confounding factors, I feel this has to have some cherry picking or selective interpretation of what is a non-violent movement. Almost always there's some non-violent action preceding a violent movement, the question is at which stage they get quashed, fail to become much bigger, and then people have to resort to violence.

All the incidents used in the count are in Appendix A, and are part of a publicly available database used by researchers in the field.

You wrote a lot but said nothing.

How does owning a firearm protect you from state violence without an implied threat to shoot police?

The Ukrainians carried guns to prevent Russians from taking over their country.