3 ms·

> what I think you're saying is that law-abiding people don't shoot people. Well, duh... No, OP complains that in the U.S. 'everyone' can carry firearms legall

by zeveb 10y ago

> what I think you're saying is that law-abiding people don't shoot people. Well, duh... No, OP complains that in the U.S. 'everyone' can carry firearms legally (not actually true: felons, wife-beaters, citizens of New Jersey & similar folks are prohibited from carrying firearms) and thus we have a high murder rate. I pointed out that the issue is not the legal right, since the folks committing the murders are not, for the most part, legally armed. > I'm always curious why Americans don't get this. There's this really straightforward clear correlation between arms-bearing and liberty (viz.: an unarmed man is fundamentally not free). Americans seem to get this; many other folks don't for some reason. I'm always curious why not.

marcus_holmes 10y ago
because I'm happy to give up my freedom to carry a gun in return for the knowledge that other people are similarly unarmed and therefore unable to shoot me. It's what we do in a polite society; restrict our freedoms to respect the rights of others. I don't play music loudly on public transport for the same reason.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  How about the knowledge that other people know that you are unarmed, and therefore are free to attack you with fists or knives without fear of you shooting them? This is not idle rhetoric. Britain has much lower gun violence statistics than the US, but higher total violence statistics.