this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
337 points (96.2% liked)

Greentext

6835 readers
738 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:

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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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.

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.