Saturday, February 17, 2018

Polling indicates that 29% of people thought an armed revolution could be necessary to protect civil rights.

A picture of my handgun just because I needed a picture to go with this post.

In the aftermath of the Florida school shooting I have been involved in several discussions about what the political ramifications of gun control might be. People seemed shocked and confused when I said that gun confiscation would likely lead to civil war. I am honestly shocked and confused that people don't understand this to be true. 

This is an old link but the polling indicates that about 30% of people thought that an armed revolution might be necessary to prevent the loss of certain liberties (ie gun rights). Actual opinion is likely much higher due to the fact that people understand saying yes to that question could be risky.  Data was from 2013, right after Sandy Hook, but helps explain why gun control consistently fails.  I would be very interested in more recent polling on this but it seems the question doesn't get asked very often.

Anecdotally it always seemed universal that the gun owners I have spoken to about it would resist an Australia style gun confiscation with non-compliance and violence. This really isn't controversial in the gun rights community, everyone understands that if such a thing were to happen it would be a bloodbath for everyone involved. At the very least people would not comply to these gun laws and at worst it would be war.

Indeed, there are several jokes and sayings in the gun community that indicate that compliance is not something that will happen. Here's a few of them:

"From my cold dead hands"
"If it's time to bury your guns in the back yard so the government doesn't take them, it's actually time to dig them back up"
"If they ever come for my guns I will just tell them I lost them in a tragic 'boating accident'"

And so on and so forth.

We can also see that in states with restrictive gun control many thousands of people did not comply with restrictive gun laws. For the New York SAFE act, which required registration of "assault weapons" only about 25,000 guns were registered, a compliance rate of 4% if the estimate of 1 million of those rifles in New York is correct. And this was for a law that simply registered a gun, not one that turned them in.

As for violence, things seem a little less clear. Current gun laws haven't been opposed with violence, thankfully, but the newer laws have been mostly mild and the enforcement has been lax. The polling from 2013 indicated that about 1/3rd of people would go to war over civil rights, which include gun rights, but I don't have more recent data. I would assume that number would have gone up on both sides of the political spectrum due to the political climate. Certainly though I doubt the views of gun rights supporters have changed, though other groups have probably joined them for other reasons. Support and dislike of President Trump would, in my mind, make the number of people who answered the question in the affirmative go up.

All that being said I should point out that I personally don't want any of this to happen. A 2nd American Civil War would be horrible even though I think that the side I am de facto on would win. Generally speaking even if I didn't anything but sit in my apartment if a war broke out over gun rights I would be forced into it due to my outspoken support of gun rights, even if I didn't want the war to happen and didn't support it. Do I think it would be justified if it ever came to it? Almost certainly, but just because something is justified doesn't mean I want it to happen. Especially since I think my own chances of survival in such a war are low to say the least.

Such a war would be unlike any other in American history and would likely be more like the Syrian Civil War than the first American Civil War. Large bands of insurgents out in the countrysides, every other country in the world sending in supplies and possibly troops, grinding and destructive warfare, starvation and horrible treatment of civilians. All of that would likely happen here if a war were to break out. Which is a major reason why I would like to avoid it if all possible.

"But only 30% of people would support a revolution and only 44% of them are Republicans! Doesn't that mean that a lot of people wouldn't fight?". This may be true but probably irrelevant. If 15% of the population rises up in revolution, they will drag a lot of the rest with them. People will fight after being infuriated by the heavy handed tactics the government would have to use to suppress that 15%. Plus the demographics of that 15% would heavily skew towards former and current soldiers and police, who are the very people you would need in a civil war. In short, even if the polling is right, and I continue to think the numbers are too low, there would be enough people to cause a huge conflict that would kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Deep down I think that the Democratic Party understands that and this is a reason why despite having control over all three branches of government no serious push on gun confiscation has happened. Sure they are trying to do it on a state level and are having some success passing laws that aren't being followed or even enforced, but nationally gun control is dead and I am sure fear of armed revolution is a major reason why.

For this reason I think that no new major gun control laws are likely on the federal level for the foreseeable future. As long as millions of Americans are willing to go to war to support the cause of gun rights, an Australia-style gun confiscation will not happen.


No comments:

Post a Comment