zlacker

Is it guns that keep governments honest and responsive to the populace? Or is it a culture of trust, honesty, and non-violence?

Yemen is in second place for guns per person. How responsive is their government to the people?

>>paulry+(OP)
My post wasn't about keeping the government honest, it was about the individual's right to protect themselves from anyone, including the government. Guns empower the individual to defend themselves without having to rely on the effective intervention of government, because they're an equalizer. This matters when the government loses effectiveness, either because resources are stretched thin (so, ineffective policing) or because incompetence or ideology creeps in (the judiciary does a poor job of removing dangerous individuals from the public). In places with effective governance, guns aren't really necessary, and it's tempting to trade them in for a small gain in security. The issue is that governments change over time, and effective systems can become ineffective. When that happens, people suddenly find themselves wanting guns again.

The debate over guns actually hinges on the extent to which the individual should be empowered to defend themselves, and historically, it hasn't just been about guns, but about all weapons, and even martial arts (which have also been banned at various points in history). Governments don't like to empower the individual, because they want to maintain a monopoly over violence (for many practical reasons), and because empowering individuals often creates its own set of trust problems (which is true for anything -- how many drivers are trustworthy, for example). Defenseless individuals are easier to govern from an administrative perspective, and if a government is good at protecting the populace from threats, it works. In fact, it can be better for the population as a whole, at least while the government is competent. But life is messy, and there are points where individuals need to defend themselves. As systems break down, not only does the need increase, but also the effectiveness of the means, because the threats you have to defend yourself against by definition don't play by the rules.

This, imo, is the real point of the second amendment. The Bill of Rights is essentially a declaration that certain rights are derived from a higher authority than government, which is why they are inalienable. No one needs permission to defend themselves, and it's my belief that the right to bear arms was put in there to ensure that should the system fail or become ineffective, the people would still be able to exercise one of their most fundamental natural rights. It certainly wasn't an accident, because it was the second thing that they added. The verbiage around government and militias makes sense in the context of having just fought a war of independence, but it also makes sense when you consider that it's often well-meaning governments that take this right away.

>>codere+9F2
Guns are more often used in crimes (~400K per year) than to stop crime (~70K). Nevermind accidents and suicides.

When was the last time that private gun ownership helped overcome a dangerous government?

Whatever the reason for the 2A, in practice, it has contributed to far more death than it prevented.

>>paulry+86a
And if citizens don't have access to guns, they'll still be used in crimes.

The second amendment isn't about safety or preventing death, it's about the right of the individual versus the overall collective. Governments and systems break down, but what doesn't change is the individual's right to defend themselves. Whether or not you think it improves individual safety in practice is irrelevant, because it's not your call (nor even the government's) to make.