4 ms·

A big problem that comes with all of these novel proposals is that for me, the average American gun owner, they're not better than the current system. What inc

A big problem that comes with all of these novel proposals is that for me, the average American gun owner, they're not better than the current system. What incentive do I have to change from the status quo if the change won't result in a net benefit for me?

Retric 11y ago
I think this idea is ridiculous. However, ... Owning a gun does not reduce the odds that you or someone you care about being being killed by a gun. So, you benefit just as much from gun control as everyone else. PS: One option is to simply jack up the cost of each bullet. At 100$ a pop that still useful for hunting or self defense so no constitutional issues, but your not going to see teens firing thousands of rounds. ;)
- jMyles 11y ago
  This proposal started as a Chris Rock joke and has become mistaken for a serious part of discourse about guns. Any time someone brings it up, it's easy to know that that person hasn't taken the time to gain even a cursory understanding of how firearms actually work in human society. So, let me state the obvious and dispel this notion: The last thing we want are unpracticed hands ahold of guns in our communities. Basic competence with a handgun takes many thousands of rounds of practice.
  - Retric 11y ago
    I hope you did not think I was serious. We would be much better off effectively banning guns in the US, but that's not going to happen. PS: You can practice just fine using rubber (wax etc) bullets. (which are still very dangerous.) There not ideal, but basic competence works just fine.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      I don't know whether you were serious, but some people who parrot this proposal are. And it's weird and scary. And while I respect your opinion about gun legislation, I disagree about the effects of disarming the populace living inside the belly of empire. I'm actually looking forward to traveling to places where guns are banned, but I don't think it's the right choice for the USA.
    - webXL 11y ago
      > We would be much better off effectively banning guns in the US, but that's not going to happen. The government's guns, too? Yeah, let's freeze hell and make that happen!
- LordKano 11y ago
  Owning a gun does not reduce the odds that you or someone you care about being being killed by a gun. Irrelevant. So, you benefit just as much from gun control as everyone else. Which is "Not at all". PS: One option is to simply jack up the cost of each bullet. At 100$ a pop that still useful for hunting or self defense so no constitutional issues, but your not going to see teens firing thousands of rounds. ;) This would make me and a lot of people like me very rich.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    > Irrelevant. And factually dubious. It's an impossible metric to track, yet statists everywhere trumpet it as though it's established science.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Compare US vs UK violence statistics and the benefits are not trivial.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      Compare the US vs UK before the Dunblane massacre. The UK was a far less violent place even when civilians had guns. In other words there were marginal, if any, benefits to disarming. In fact, there was an increase in certain kinds of violent crimes. It may well have been a net negative. No thank you.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      Surely you realize you can't just say this in a vacuum. This is a huge topic of debate. At the very least, you need to recognize the two basic challenges of this argument: 1) Violence is no less typical in the UK; as I understand it, you are more likely to be attacked with a knife in London than with a gun in any US city, and 2) In several crucial ways, the UK and the US are completely different - not least of these is that the US is the center of hegemonic influence in the world. For sociopolitical reasons, it may not be wise to allow this hegemon to be armed and unchecked, and this might not be so for other developed nations.
jMyles 11y ago
The problem this proposal is ostensibly solving is that currently, there is no way to achieve both 1) a minimum standard, among a few criteria, for firearm ownership or carry, and 2) ignorance on the part of a central authority about who owns weapons. To the extent that both of these are important, this solution seeks to provide a system that does what the current one cannot.

Retric 11y ago

I think this idea is ridiculous. However, ... Owning a gun does not reduce the odds that you or someone you care about being being killed by a gun. So, you benefit just as much from gun control as everyone else. PS: One option is to simply jack up the cost of each bullet. At 100$ a pop that still useful for hunting or self defense so no constitutional issues, but your not going to see teens firing thousands of rounds. ;)

jMyles 11y ago
This proposal started as a Chris Rock joke and has become mistaken for a serious part of discourse about guns. Any time someone brings it up, it's easy to know that that person hasn't taken the time to gain even a cursory understanding of how firearms actually work in human society. So, let me state the obvious and dispel this notion: The last thing we want are unpracticed hands ahold of guns in our communities. Basic competence with a handgun takes many thousands of rounds of practice.
- Retric 11y ago
  I hope you did not think I was serious. We would be much better off effectively banning guns in the US, but that's not going to happen. PS: You can practice just fine using rubber (wax etc) bullets. (which are still very dangerous.) There not ideal, but basic competence works just fine.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    I don't know whether you were serious, but some people who parrot this proposal are. And it's weird and scary. And while I respect your opinion about gun legislation, I disagree about the effects of disarming the populace living inside the belly of empire. I'm actually looking forward to traveling to places where guns are banned, but I don't think it's the right choice for the USA.
  - webXL 11y ago
    > We would be much better off effectively banning guns in the US, but that's not going to happen. The government's guns, too? Yeah, let's freeze hell and make that happen!
LordKano 11y ago
Owning a gun does not reduce the odds that you or someone you care about being being killed by a gun. Irrelevant. So, you benefit just as much from gun control as everyone else. Which is "Not at all". PS: One option is to simply jack up the cost of each bullet. At 100$ a pop that still useful for hunting or self defense so no constitutional issues, but your not going to see teens firing thousands of rounds. ;) This would make me and a lot of people like me very rich.
- jMyles 11y ago
  > Irrelevant. And factually dubious. It's an impossible metric to track, yet statists everywhere trumpet it as though it's established science.
- Retric 11y ago
  Compare US vs UK violence statistics and the benefits are not trivial.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Compare the US vs UK before the Dunblane massacre. The UK was a far less violent place even when civilians had guns. In other words there were marginal, if any, benefits to disarming. In fact, there was an increase in certain kinds of violent crimes. It may well have been a net negative. No thank you.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    Surely you realize you can't just say this in a vacuum. This is a huge topic of debate. At the very least, you need to recognize the two basic challenges of this argument: 1) Violence is no less typical in the UK; as I understand it, you are more likely to be attacked with a knife in London than with a gun in any US city, and 2) In several crucial ways, the UK and the US are completely different - not least of these is that the US is the center of hegemonic influence in the world. For sociopolitical reasons, it may not be wise to allow this hegemon to be armed and unchecked, and this might not be so for other developed nations.

jMyles 11y ago

The problem this proposal is ostensibly solving is that currently, there is no way to achieve both 1) a minimum standard, among a few criteria, for firearm ownership or carry, and 2) ignorance on the part of a central authority about who owns weapons. To the extent that both of these are important, this solution seeks to provide a system that does what the current one cannot.