5 ms·

Just two comments apart you support "gun rights" and then say we should be able to do what we like "as long as you don't hurt others". Does not compute. Mutual

Just two comments apart you support "gun rights" and then say we should be able to do what we like "as long as you don't hurt others". Does not compute. Mutually exclusive desires. Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale. edit: i see downvotes, but I don't see counterarguments. Parent post says "everyone I talk to agrees", if nothing else I'm trying to point out that while it may seem like common sense to you, others will see other things as common sense.

lettergram 10y ago
Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life, and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun. People use guns because of the fear, the spot light, and the ability to target. I don't disagree people see things as common sense. I also don't disagree in having some laws governing weaponry. That doesn't mean I don't think we should be allowed to own them, nor that it isn't benificial. Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it.
- kennywinker 10y ago
  > Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. > gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically within the past 50 years. The idea that government doesn't get to regulate even slightly the right to bear arms is a new interpretation. Free speech is literally part of the foundation of the U.S., but we mostly all agree that slander is a thing that should be illegal. Separation of church and state is part of the foundation of the U.S., but churches are tax exempt. These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. > Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. > Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it. Well we agree there, but in my view the research that has been done has already pointed in the direction of more regulation than we have now.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    I think it's a bit fallacious to say statistically it does. When you look at the numbers the number of guns doesn't really correlate to gun related fatalities.. for example the U.S. Has a ton of guns, but per capita Japan has a higher gun fatality rate (this includes suicides). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm...
    - mundo 10y ago
      huh? Per that link, the gun fatality rate in the US is about 175x that of Japan (10.54/100k vs 0.06). Are you calculating deaths-per-gun or something goofy like that?
      - lettergram 10y ago
        Sure fatalities are, but look at the guns per capita. When you actually do the math the US has significantly less gun fatalities per gun
        seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        That's because many of those guns are smuggled into Mexico and Central America.
        kennywinker 10y ago
        Guns per capita seems weird to me. Guns are not evenly distributed. One gun collector with 200 guns makes for a skewed representation of the prevalence of guns. I'd like to see percentage of households with one or more gun. That, to me, would be representative.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. That's not how causation works. If you add more guns in one culture you may get more violence because people do the same violence with more lethal weapons. If you add more guns in a different culture you may get less violence because perpetrators are less likely to initiate violence when there is a higher likelihood that their victims are armed. In a third culture there will be negligible difference because people commit the same violence whether with guns or IEDs or other weapons. And nothing exists in a vacuum. Something like mandatory firearms safety training in high schools will reduce the number of deaths without reducing the number of guns. In other words, you can determine the culture. > These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. The nuances that have historically made it into gun laws have no relation to reality. A law banning rifles based on cosmetic features scores political points with the gun control lobby but saves no lives. And the stated end goal of the gun control lobby is to repeal the second amendment and ban all guns, which is not a nuanced position. Also, this: http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/ http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control... > Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. You can own a truck without even having a driver's license, and the regulations are unrelated to intentional use to do violence, which is covered by the general laws against murder and violence rather than anything specific to trucks.
- madgar 10y ago
  Research won't be done because over 20 years ago, Republicans made it illegal for federal taxpayer money to be used to study gun control. Very little cleanly private money exists to study the issue. Universities are tainted with public funds, NGOs are tainted as well, and so on. So what studies we do get are NRA-funded.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. This is a horrible way of thinking. Times change, just because something made sense in the 1700's doesn't mean it makes sense today. Every generation has a right to change the laws it lives under to better reflect the reality of the world they live in, the Constitution is not a sacred text that can't be disagreed with, it's just laws, and it's changeable. There is every reason to fight that which no longer makes sense. The second amendment was written in an era where muskets were state of the art; unrestricted access to arms hasn't made sense in a hundred years.
jack9 10y ago
> I don't see counterarguments Probably because you aren't interested in a discussion. > Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale. The tendency toward loss of life is known and acceptable, much like the cost of having vehicles. You think it's a shocking scale and I think it's marginal. Vehicle deaths still outpace in the US, so your bias is transparent.
- extra88 10y ago
  Motor vehicle deaths have now dropped top the point that they're about even with gun deaths. [0] But I would argue that the utility of having motor vehicles far outstrips the utility of having guns carried and in the home. Maybe gun deaths could drop more if CDC and other researchers were allowed study their effects on health more and if gun safety regulations were handled more like car safety. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-...
- kennywinker 10y ago
  > Probably because you aren't interested in a discussion. What makes you say that? Why would I delve into comment threads if I wasn't interested in a discussion. > your bias is transparent I also strongly believe cars should be heavily regulated. Lucky for us all, they are. I'm down for more regulation, if well thought out, to continue to bring this number down.

lettergram 10y ago

Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life, and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun. People use guns because of the fear, the spot light, and the ability to target. I don't disagree people see things as common sense. I also don't disagree in having some laws governing weaponry. That doesn't mean I don't think we should be allowed to own them, nor that it isn't benificial. Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it.

kennywinker 10y ago
> Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. > gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically within the past 50 years. The idea that government doesn't get to regulate even slightly the right to bear arms is a new interpretation. Free speech is literally part of the foundation of the U.S., but we mostly all agree that slander is a thing that should be illegal. Separation of church and state is part of the foundation of the U.S., but churches are tax exempt. These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. > Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. > Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it. Well we agree there, but in my view the research that has been done has already pointed in the direction of more regulation than we have now.
- lettergram 10y ago
  I think it's a bit fallacious to say statistically it does. When you look at the numbers the number of guns doesn't really correlate to gun related fatalities.. for example the U.S. Has a ton of guns, but per capita Japan has a higher gun fatality rate (this includes suicides). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm...
  - mundo 10y ago
    huh? Per that link, the gun fatality rate in the US is about 175x that of Japan (10.54/100k vs 0.06). Are you calculating deaths-per-gun or something goofy like that?
    - lettergram 10y ago
      Sure fatalities are, but look at the guns per capita. When you actually do the math the US has significantly less gun fatalities per gun
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        That's because many of those guns are smuggled into Mexico and Central America.
      - kennywinker 10y ago
        Guns per capita seems weird to me. Guns are not evenly distributed. One gun collector with 200 guns makes for a skewed representation of the prevalence of guns. I'd like to see percentage of households with one or more gun. That, to me, would be representative.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. That's not how causation works. If you add more guns in one culture you may get more violence because people do the same violence with more lethal weapons. If you add more guns in a different culture you may get less violence because perpetrators are less likely to initiate violence when there is a higher likelihood that their victims are armed. In a third culture there will be negligible difference because people commit the same violence whether with guns or IEDs or other weapons. And nothing exists in a vacuum. Something like mandatory firearms safety training in high schools will reduce the number of deaths without reducing the number of guns. In other words, you can determine the culture. > These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. The nuances that have historically made it into gun laws have no relation to reality. A law banning rifles based on cosmetic features scores political points with the gun control lobby but saves no lives. And the stated end goal of the gun control lobby is to repeal the second amendment and ban all guns, which is not a nuanced position. Also, this: http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/ http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control... > Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. You can own a truck without even having a driver's license, and the regulations are unrelated to intentional use to do violence, which is covered by the general laws against murder and violence rather than anything specific to trucks.
madgar 10y ago
Research won't be done because over 20 years ago, Republicans made it illegal for federal taxpayer money to be used to study gun control. Very little cleanly private money exists to study the issue. Universities are tainted with public funds, NGOs are tainted as well, and so on. So what studies we do get are NRA-funded.
gnaritas 10y ago
> and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. This is a horrible way of thinking. Times change, just because something made sense in the 1700's doesn't mean it makes sense today. Every generation has a right to change the laws it lives under to better reflect the reality of the world they live in, the Constitution is not a sacred text that can't be disagreed with, it's just laws, and it's changeable. There is every reason to fight that which no longer makes sense. The second amendment was written in an era where muskets were state of the art; unrestricted access to arms hasn't made sense in a hundred years.

jack9 10y ago

> I don't see counterarguments Probably because you aren't interested in a discussion. > Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale. The tendency toward loss of life is known and acceptable, much like the cost of having vehicles. You think it's a shocking scale and I think it's marginal. Vehicle deaths still outpace in the US, so your bias is transparent.

extra88 10y ago
Motor vehicle deaths have now dropped top the point that they're about even with gun deaths. [0] But I would argue that the utility of having motor vehicles far outstrips the utility of having guns carried and in the home. Maybe gun deaths could drop more if CDC and other researchers were allowed study their effects on health more and if gun safety regulations were handled more like car safety. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-...
kennywinker 10y ago
> Probably because you aren't interested in a discussion. What makes you say that? Why would I delve into comment threads if I wasn't interested in a discussion. > your bias is transparent I also strongly believe cars should be heavily regulated. Lucky for us all, they are. I'm down for more regulation, if well thought out, to continue to bring this number down.