[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

I don't think that that sounds absurd because of the math. The reason it seems absurd is because security based upon mutually-assured destruction is hardly the most civil scenario. At a certain point, that very solution maintains its own minimal level of violence through the culture of fear it produces.

you're right that it's not the most civil, but last i checked this is not a very "civil" country. it was built on the dual engines of slavery and genocide, and it remains, compared to other industrialized countries, moderately barbaric. there is little consideration of the social implications of individual actions and it's "every man for himself" most of the time. the most frequent complaint you hear in politics is "taxes are bad. i don't wanna pay taxes".

the etymological meaning of the word "idiot" is one who just thinks of himself (idios) -- for the greeks it was one who didn't take part in public life. in that sense this is a nation of idiots. "me me me me me and to hell with everyone else". the assumption is that if you take care of yourself the social sphere will take care of itself. it doesn't, but regardless of you agreeing with that or not, you're left on your own.

so yes, i agree with you that this is not the most civil of scenarios, and with voltaire that this is not the best of all possible worlds, but it's what we have to deal with, and i'm not sure i want to be the first martyr of some ideal cause. "i refuse to be armed, please kill me in the name of peace". sorry, not for me.

Originally Posted by pbradley

Certainly less crime is preferable to more crime, so repealing gun restrictions in some cases may have evident practical benefit, but I think that would require a slew of statistics and reliable sociology to determine that such a scenario is preferable.

yes, but the guns are already there, and the individual idiot doesn't care about statistics or sociology (a "communist" discipline).

mind you, i come from a very anti-gun household, and i have been indoctrinated since childhool that when robbed at gunpoint what you do is give up the goods-- that's why you have insurance, and your life is not worth a tv, or a wallet, or some other bullshit piece of property. here, have the fucking keys, go away, i don't have to risk my kidneys.

however, there is the threat of violence from sociopathic and violent people who are already armed, and what is one supposed to do? to be a dove among the hawks? it would require a christian mindset ("turn the other cheek") that i lack. i avoid trouble in the streets, but if trouble comes looking for me i will not be unprepared or wait for the police to show up 2 hours later with a notepad. it is an uncivil country after all. they had lynchings until recently and they still tie people to pickup trucks and drag them, or like that gay kid in wyoming, i forget his name, who was left to die pinned to a barbed wire fence. oh yes, mathew shepard.

Originally Posted by pbradley

Would it makes sense to arm the populous in instances where there exists less crime than if you did arm everybody? Of course not. Also, there is that matter of guns bleeding in from de-regulated populations.

i don't think that you or any entity arms the populace, the populace arms itself. each idiot thinking of their own self-interest. it's "the american way". we're not talking about a wise and benevolent ruler deciding that his people will or will not be armed. anyway, the only guns that are regulated are automatic weapons, otherwise they are just registered/unregistered, i.e., traceable to an owner, and yes, illegal weapons are a bane and should be removed-- but the ATF is having little success with that.

Originally Posted by pbradley

It was the lesson of the Cold War that neither Comintern nor democracy was infectious but the mutually-assured destruction that they birthed. It isn't even about ideologies or justice at that point. It provides its own reason for being. Not a thing is more infectious than fear.

yes, and in an ideal world i would say "hey everybody let's disarm", but it only takes one country to nuke everybody else. MAD wasn't an ideology, it was pure game theory, mathematics, strategy. the problem wasn't the nuclear race itself, the error was opening the door to nuclear weapons. that was done by the nazis, by the way, the american bomb was a reaction to the german nuclear project. once that door was opened and the threat of nuclear bombs existed, the only way to avoid it was to make it so utterly futile that nobody would dare use it. if there had been only 8 or 10 nukes during the cold war, you can be sure they would have been used the way they were used in hiroshima or nagasaki, and today los angeles and berlin and moscow and petersburg/leningrad might be the site of nuclear wastelands.

there is danger in the world regardless of whether we fear it or not; often the worst danger is the one we don't fear and catches us unprepared. a reasonable measure of fear is called prudence, and it's a sign of intelligence and good judgment. too much fear and you end up with insanity and paranoia, and the dangers born from it which can be greater of the original threat. but you cannot will away danger by simply refusing to feel fear. you feel it, you hear what it has to say, and you let it go and not become obsessed by it, you go on living. the equivalent is that you put on your seatbelt before you drive and then you can only hope that the person driving the opposite way doesn't suddenly veer into your lane.

but yes, this is not the most civil country, it's slightly savage, there is a strong racist streak and a lot of prejudice and violence, so how does one survive it? wait for the cops? what is your seatbelt?