![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was raised to believe that popular ownership of guns was an important bulwark against tyranny. Many were, particularly in my part of the country. It took me many years to recognize this for what it was: an article of faith, masquerading as political science. As a scientific conjecture, it is completely unproven. The dataset of modern societies with well-armed populations dealing with rising authoritarianism isn't large enough to draw conclusions either way.
We do, however, have pretty good data on "asymmetrical warfare" (i.e., guerilla actions). I did a deep dive on this about a decade ago, trying to answer the question of why "classical" warfare doesn't seem to work anymore. Yes, a stronger country can still defeat the conventional forces of a weaker one, but then they just get caught in the morass of unending guerilla war. Like Vietnam. Or Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. The professional literature on the subject is almost entirely focused on what tactics to use in response, which I wasn't interested in. Among that I found an academic data set of all (documented) wars over the last 1000 years, with symmetrical-ness and outcomes labeled. I can't find my working notes for this at the moment, but exploring the data did make some things clear to me.
First, asymmetrical war has always worked, and it has always worked pretty well. It wasn't born in the 20th century, made possible by advances in firearm technology. (That is a popular theory.) There are examples going back centuries. What has changed isn't the outcomes, but the frequency with which it is attempted. Graphing that showed a clear non-linear growth pattern, with a possible inflection point around 1900. The explanation I developed (though never wrote up properly, dammit) was that the important change was global media. It used to be that if Georgian peasants were able to fight off Tsarist troops, very few people heard about it outside of the immediate area. Those that did hear about it tended not to be the kind of people who would need to fight a desperate guerilla war. If there was an inflection point it was, as far as I could see, the Boer War. A global empire was fought to a standstill by a plucky resistant group, and for the first time everyone saw it unfold more or less as it happened. The UK did finally win, but it was a very ugly thing. That has only been happening more and more frequently ever since. Unlike during the rest of human history, we all know that it can work now. The obvious result is that people try it more often.
Getting back to internal US issues, last night ESR posted an impassioned (and, you know, disgusting) screed about the rising gun control movement:
This is what I realized back when I was starting to question my assumptions about gun ownership. This is what the Second Amendment is actually about, made explicit. Not some adolescent fantasy of defeating the US Army with hunting rifles, Wolverine style. Nothing nearly so heroic. It's a doomsday device. It is about giving a certain group of people the credible threat of turning the country into a hell of endless violence, ethnic cleansing and barbarity that would last for decades, if not generations.
I don't think the population is going to accept "MOAR GUNS" as the answer to gun violence for much longer -- it's not actually a very popular position. Like much of the current GOP platform, it is the result of skillful regulatory capture, not a response to genuine democratic forces. But if the 3% of the country who own 50% the guns decides their interpretation of the Constitution is the only acceptable interpretation, they do indeed have a doomsday device. And they're openly discussing it as such. The big question is will they really decide they need to destroy the country in order to save it?
An only slightly smaller question is what can be done to minimize the effectiveness/contain the violence if they do push the button? Over the last year, I've become more vocally pro-Cascadia and more active in my local community. If it does get ugly, social ties will only get more valuable the more local they are, right on down to the neighborhood level. But that ain't much, as far as pro-active responses go. I'm very much open to better ideas.
We do, however, have pretty good data on "asymmetrical warfare" (i.e., guerilla actions). I did a deep dive on this about a decade ago, trying to answer the question of why "classical" warfare doesn't seem to work anymore. Yes, a stronger country can still defeat the conventional forces of a weaker one, but then they just get caught in the morass of unending guerilla war. Like Vietnam. Or Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. The professional literature on the subject is almost entirely focused on what tactics to use in response, which I wasn't interested in. Among that I found an academic data set of all (documented) wars over the last 1000 years, with symmetrical-ness and outcomes labeled. I can't find my working notes for this at the moment, but exploring the data did make some things clear to me.
First, asymmetrical war has always worked, and it has always worked pretty well. It wasn't born in the 20th century, made possible by advances in firearm technology. (That is a popular theory.) There are examples going back centuries. What has changed isn't the outcomes, but the frequency with which it is attempted. Graphing that showed a clear non-linear growth pattern, with a possible inflection point around 1900. The explanation I developed (though never wrote up properly, dammit) was that the important change was global media. It used to be that if Georgian peasants were able to fight off Tsarist troops, very few people heard about it outside of the immediate area. Those that did hear about it tended not to be the kind of people who would need to fight a desperate guerilla war. If there was an inflection point it was, as far as I could see, the Boer War. A global empire was fought to a standstill by a plucky resistant group, and for the first time everyone saw it unfold more or less as it happened. The UK did finally win, but it was a very ugly thing. That has only been happening more and more frequently ever since. Unlike during the rest of human history, we all know that it can work now. The obvious result is that people try it more often.
Getting back to internal US issues, last night ESR posted an impassioned (and, you know, disgusting) screed about the rising gun control movement:
I will now add a very sober and practical warning: If the Constitution is abrogated by a "repeal" of 2A, it will be revolution time — millions of armed Americans will regard it as their moral duty to rise up and kill those who threw it in the trash. I will be one of them.
Left-liberals, you do not want this. I’m a tolerant libertarian, but many of the revolutionaries I’d be fighting alongside would be simpler and harder men, full of faith and hatred. If that revolution comes, you will lose and the political aftermath is likely to be dominated by people so right-wing that I myself would fear for the outcome.
You should fear it much more than I. Back away from those tripwires; you are risking doom. Ethnic cleansing? Theocracy? Anti-LGBT pogroms? Systematic extermination of cultural Marxists? In a peaceful, Constitutional America these horrors will not be. If you blow up the Constitution, they might.
This is what I realized back when I was starting to question my assumptions about gun ownership. This is what the Second Amendment is actually about, made explicit. Not some adolescent fantasy of defeating the US Army with hunting rifles, Wolverine style. Nothing nearly so heroic. It's a doomsday device. It is about giving a certain group of people the credible threat of turning the country into a hell of endless violence, ethnic cleansing and barbarity that would last for decades, if not generations.
I don't think the population is going to accept "MOAR GUNS" as the answer to gun violence for much longer -- it's not actually a very popular position. Like much of the current GOP platform, it is the result of skillful regulatory capture, not a response to genuine democratic forces. But if the 3% of the country who own 50% the guns decides their interpretation of the Constitution is the only acceptable interpretation, they do indeed have a doomsday device. And they're openly discussing it as such. The big question is will they really decide they need to destroy the country in order to save it?
An only slightly smaller question is what can be done to minimize the effectiveness/contain the violence if they do push the button? Over the last year, I've become more vocally pro-Cascadia and more active in my local community. If it does get ugly, social ties will only get more valuable the more local they are, right on down to the neighborhood level. But that ain't much, as far as pro-active responses go. I'm very much open to better ideas.
no subject
They think they have a doomsday device. I think they're in for a surprise if they try to use it.
no subject