Greentext

6828 readers

564 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

335

Anon breaks up (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 days ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

183 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

It's very amusing to read such things from outside the American hellscape. Well, "amusing."

Let's say eventually there comes a government overreach that a popular armed uprising puts down. Every day until that day, children die. Accidental death from firearms is one of the leading causes of death of children in your country. (Do you feel that pricking sensation in your neck and face or are you immune to shame?) If the rebellion doesn't come soon enough (or at all) then you are underwater in terms of dead children. So, how long is that runway? How long do you get to keep killing children until you have to admit, fuck, this is costing us more than it's worth?

HAVE YOU EVEN DONE THE MATH, or are you just working from feelings?

[–] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

It's a good argument, but it's entirely flawed because American policy is that the children have no worth until they pay taxes.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

To compare dead children to the cost of failing to check government power, we can reduce both to life-years lost:

🔫 Current Cost: Child Firearm Deaths in the U.S.

~2,000 preventable child gun deaths/year
~60 life-years lost per death
120,000 life-years lost annually
Over 30 years: ~3.6 million life-years lost

🏛️ Hypothetical Benefit: Preventing Tyranny

Assume a worst-case scenario:

Authoritarian collapse kills 10 million (based on 20th-century examples)
Avg. age at death: ~40 → ~35 life-years lost
10M deaths × 35 = 350 million life-years lost

Estimate risk:

Without civilian arms: 0.5% chance over 30 years
With civilian arms: 0.4% chance
These figures are speculative; there’s no empirical support that civilian gun ownership reduces the risk of tyranny—many stable democracies have strict gun control.

In fact, high civilian armament may reduce stability:

Greater availability of weapons increases the lethality of civil unrest, crime, and domestic terrorism.
Armed polarization can accelerate breakdown during political crises, as seen in failed or fragile states.
States may respond with harsher repression, escalating rather than deterring authoritarian outcomes.

📊 Expected Value Calculation

Without arms: 0.005 × 350M = 1.75 million life-years at risk
With arms: 0.004 × 350M = 1.2 million life-years at risk
Net benefit of arms: ~550,000 life-years saved (generous estimate)

📉 Conclusion

Even with favorable assumptions:

Civilian firearms cost ~3.6M life-years (due to preventable child deaths)
And prevent only ~550K life-years (via marginally lower tyranny risk)

Bottom line: The ongoing cost vastly outweighs the hypothetical benefit, and high armament may worsen long-term stability rather than protect it.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Tongue in cheek of course but it still makes a point. The facts-over-feelings crowd has to show that the benefit of firearms outweigh the very observable negative consequences, and they cannot. So they are arguing feelings, not facts.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

In 2015 I'd agree.

In 2025? Nah, look at what's happening around the US.

Dems are losing votes because of the guns issue, drop the gun issue, along with promoting a progressive platform and that's easily winning elections.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Accidental deaths from firearms can be reduced by making people get obligatory training and requiring storage in a gun safe, when not carried.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Okay? So how many years does that push the "break even point"? Do you see how this doesn't engage with my point in the slightest?