5 ms·

>"this is designed to be good at killing people" You are trivializing it. If you talk to a specialist they can tell you all about stopping powers of various ca

>"this is designed to be good at killing people" You are trivializing it. If you talk to a specialist they can tell you all about stopping powers of various calibers and round capacity of a gun. And, yes, it is designed to be good at killing people and I am glad for it. I don't want to threaten an aggressor with a dull letter opener, hardly qualify as a deadly force. When it is used, it better serve the purpose, lives depend on it. I firmly believe there are more good people than bad in this world. I would rather have my fellow human being, my neighbor, armed and able to help, than wait for cops to arrive. I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) >Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts). You may chose to not arm yourself, perfectly fine by me. When you say others shouldn't be armed either, that is when you are bigger enemy than the criminals. Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course?

Thrymr 9y ago
> I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) You think that escalating a frustrating but not dangerous situation with deadly force is an "answer"?
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  It escalates because people think that it is safe to escalate. If one makes a threatening move that has full possibility of being responded with serious force, people will not be so fast to escalate. May be we will come up with an app for the "connected", electric vehicles where some permissible form of digital flipping can be conveyed to the drivers around you.
  - tasty_freeze 9y ago
    There is a flip side to this. If someone is a complete asshole to me, I should feel comfortable to express my displeasure with their behavior. That isn't escalating, that is communicating. But if I have to fear that the other person has a gun, it silences my legitimate right to communicate.
- s73ver 9y ago
  That's why I can't take any gun rights advocate seriously.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    I am serious enough to give that situation a thought. Check my other answer if you care... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256900
jaredklewis 9y ago
> Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course? I don't think it is simple as that. To be sure, guns might provide positive outcomes in some situations. But does that benefit outweigh their downsides. Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms. Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accommolish without easy access to firearms. As for the benefits, how often do firearms prevent homicide? It's a hard thing to measure. I'm skeptical they prevent much at all. For one thing the type of "gang" style homicide you are imaging is not a very common variety. In 2011, the FBI only identified 11.7 percent of homicides as being carried out by a stranger to the victim. Just by the numbers, getting killed by your spouse or coworker is more likely. I imagine the protective benefit of firearms is far less in these situations. Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accomplish without easy access to firearms. They were easy to accomplish because they targeted places that they knew for sure where the people would be unarmed, our laws ensured it. An attempt against local gun club or police station is not going to succeed, is it? People who want commit crimes don't care if the guns they use were acquired legally. They can acquire a gun from black market. And just like with drugs, making it illegal ensures that there would be a thriving black market. We made those events possible by making gun-free zones. I hope we collectively would come to senses and trust our fellow human being, instead of treating everyone as psychopathic criminal. >Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms. Less than 600 deaths in 2013. but 16,000 deaths related to Ibuprofen. You may say one accident is too many. I would say one person stopped by us collectively from protecting themselves against an aggressor is one too many. You are thinking about group. I care about individual. And Gun Access must be looked at through individual rights lens. > Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack. I am not asking for complete guarantee of safety against attack. BTW, do you think cops can provide that? I am asking for opportunity to defend myself without being preemptively disarmed, that's all. People launch startups knowing that most will fail. They appreciate the opportunity to try. Gun Access is an opportunity to try, if you want to take it, no one is forcing it on you, just like no one is forcing everyone to launch a startup. One may feel secure in capabilities of police to keep them safe. One may feel secure in corporate job instead of a startup. But, one must have an option to start a startup if one so desires. One must have an option to defend oneself with guns, if one so desires.
nugator 9y ago
God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. When will you understand that your high rate of people getting killed by guns, compared to other western countries, is caused by your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems?
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  > God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy. > Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. It is not a mechanism to address a communal goal of increased security of our society. It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. >your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems Solution to all problems? We do understand that it is not a solution to all problems, already.
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    > It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. It's a recognition of the individual right to feel defended. Statistics (and the results of every other developed country in the world) suggest that feeling is wrong.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      It's binary, not statistics. Would you grant that there has been at least one case where gun was used successfully to defend oneself? If so, then for that person, that option was worthwhile and exercised successfully. All statistics be damned. And I for one, doesn't want to revert the outcome of that event because of statistics. It is highly individual decision to exercise an option available to them. Success or failure of that option has nothing to do with it, hence statistics of outcome of the event doesn't have a bearing on the option being available. Should I not have right to give $20 to a homeless person? Statistics may say it would most likely get used for drugs. Does that mean society should outlaw donating money to homeless persons? You may publish stats and provide alternative means to help homeless, but individual decisions to donate to homeless can't be outlawed, can it be? http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ What may be moral as group goal as seen by outsider bystander, may be immoral when seen from individual perspective. People are not statistical samples, people are individuals. I associate myself with individual first, before group. I prefer individual safety first, I value it more than some perceived group benefit.

Thrymr 9y ago

> I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) You think that escalating a frustrating but not dangerous situation with deadly force is an "answer"?

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
It escalates because people think that it is safe to escalate. If one makes a threatening move that has full possibility of being responded with serious force, people will not be so fast to escalate. May be we will come up with an app for the "connected", electric vehicles where some permissible form of digital flipping can be conveyed to the drivers around you.
- tasty_freeze 9y ago
  There is a flip side to this. If someone is a complete asshole to me, I should feel comfortable to express my displeasure with their behavior. That isn't escalating, that is communicating. But if I have to fear that the other person has a gun, it silences my legitimate right to communicate.
s73ver 9y ago
That's why I can't take any gun rights advocate seriously.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  I am serious enough to give that situation a thought. Check my other answer if you care... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256900

jaredklewis 9y ago

> Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course? I don't think it is simple as that. To be sure, guns might provide positive outcomes in some situations. But does that benefit outweigh their downsides. Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms. Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accommolish without easy access to firearms. As for the benefits, how often do firearms prevent homicide? It's a hard thing to measure. I'm skeptical they prevent much at all. For one thing the type of "gang" style homicide you are imaging is not a very common variety. In 2011, the FBI only identified 11.7 percent of homicides as being carried out by a stranger to the victim. Just by the numbers, getting killed by your spouse or coworker is more likely. I imagine the protective benefit of firearms is far less in these situations. Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accomplish without easy access to firearms. They were easy to accomplish because they targeted places that they knew for sure where the people would be unarmed, our laws ensured it. An attempt against local gun club or police station is not going to succeed, is it? People who want commit crimes don't care if the guns they use were acquired legally. They can acquire a gun from black market. And just like with drugs, making it illegal ensures that there would be a thriving black market. We made those events possible by making gun-free zones. I hope we collectively would come to senses and trust our fellow human being, instead of treating everyone as psychopathic criminal. >Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms. Less than 600 deaths in 2013. but 16,000 deaths related to Ibuprofen. You may say one accident is too many. I would say one person stopped by us collectively from protecting themselves against an aggressor is one too many. You are thinking about group. I care about individual. And Gun Access must be looked at through individual rights lens. > Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack. I am not asking for complete guarantee of safety against attack. BTW, do you think cops can provide that? I am asking for opportunity to defend myself without being preemptively disarmed, that's all. People launch startups knowing that most will fail. They appreciate the opportunity to try. Gun Access is an opportunity to try, if you want to take it, no one is forcing it on you, just like no one is forcing everyone to launch a startup. One may feel secure in capabilities of police to keep them safe. One may feel secure in corporate job instead of a startup. But, one must have an option to start a startup if one so desires. One must have an option to defend oneself with guns, if one so desires.

nugator 9y ago

God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. When will you understand that your high rate of people getting killed by guns, compared to other western countries, is caused by your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems?

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
> God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy. > Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. It is not a mechanism to address a communal goal of increased security of our society. It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. >your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems Solution to all problems? We do understand that it is not a solution to all problems, already.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  > It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. It's a recognition of the individual right to feel defended. Statistics (and the results of every other developed country in the world) suggest that feeling is wrong.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    It's binary, not statistics. Would you grant that there has been at least one case where gun was used successfully to defend oneself? If so, then for that person, that option was worthwhile and exercised successfully. All statistics be damned. And I for one, doesn't want to revert the outcome of that event because of statistics. It is highly individual decision to exercise an option available to them. Success or failure of that option has nothing to do with it, hence statistics of outcome of the event doesn't have a bearing on the option being available. Should I not have right to give $20 to a homeless person? Statistics may say it would most likely get used for drugs. Does that mean society should outlaw donating money to homeless persons? You may publish stats and provide alternative means to help homeless, but individual decisions to donate to homeless can't be outlawed, can it be? http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ What may be moral as group goal as seen by outsider bystander, may be immoral when seen from individual perspective. People are not statistical samples, people are individuals. I associate myself with individual first, before group. I prefer individual safety first, I value it more than some perceived group benefit.