7 ms·

I used to shoot rifles when I was a kid, I even won prizes. Winning a beer mug as an 11yo kid is the height of country living, and I still use it proudly to thi

I used to shoot rifles when I was a kid, I even won prizes. Winning a beer mug as an 11yo kid is the height of country living, and I still use it proudly to this day. Guns definitely have their uses, for instance hunting. Target shooting is also quite fun, but these guns are rather different from the ones most gun enthusiasts like to own. I think personal ownership of guns should be restricted, thought I will not make myself an expert as to how much. Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. I live in Denmark. Firearm ownership is very restricted, you have to have a very good justification to own anything that isn't a hunting rifle, and there are very strict storage safety and handling laws in place. Maybe a lot of people think we are too restrictive, but as a counterpoint, we do have extremely low levels of gun violence. Another example could be Switzerland. You can own guns and buy ammo, but there are much tighter background checks in place compared to the US. In addition to this, they have a much more developed culture for gun safety and respect for firearms, so their rates of gun violence are extremely low. If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best.

microcolonel 9y ago
Comparing levels of gun violence is fallacious, though. The real question is: do guns affect the overall rate of violent crime? If guns are available, it is obvious that violent crime will more often involve them instead of knives, rope, and explosives (the other three big weapons in many places); but that alone is a neutral outcome. It is not a problem, in itself, that violent criminals use firearms to commit crimes. The problem arises when firearms enhance criminals' violent outcomes when committing violent crimes. That outcome is harder to measure and build a political campaign on, but it is infinitely more honest and productive.
Pinckney 9y ago
>I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. This isn't really workable. One of the primary ways criminal gangs acquire firearms here in the US is through "straw purchases", where they have someone with a clean record go purchase a gun for them. This works fairly well for them, but has its limits: if guns you've purchased later turn up in crimes, you're likely to face pointed questions. You can't do this too often without putting yourself at serious risk. But straw purchases of ammunition are almost impossible to track. If the buyer is asked to account for their ammunition, they can simply claim to have shot it all already. Meanwhile, it adds great expense to ammunition (My local stores mark up their ammo nearly 100% already, and it will become worse next January once it's illegal for me to order ammunition online). And because criminals actually use very little ammunition, this cost falls almost entirely on legitimate target shooters and hunters, who are the ones shooting tens of thousands of rounds a year.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  I see your point. One could also argue that ammo isn't very dangerous without a gun to fire it from, although one could be cobbled together from scrap pieces of metal.
- douche 9y ago
  I'm not entirely sure how it would be possible to make any secure conclusions about the provenance of a gun that was used in a crime. As far as I know, it is not legal to keep a registry of serial numbers and who they were originally sold to. Moreover, in most states, you can sell firearms privately, without any background checks or paperwork at all. I have only purchased one of my firearms in an actual gun shop - the half dozen others are inherited, or purchased from friends, family, or randos on Craigslist or Uncle Henry's. Good luck tracking back the chain of custody on some of those...
dfsegoat 9y ago
> Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. I take great issue with this. You say you came from 'country living' - but I find that hard to believe in light of your comment above. Anyone who lives in the country, where it will take the cops 10-20 minutes to respond, knows damn well why we have the 2A and the right to keep firearms in our homes for self-defense. Source: Repelled a home invasion robbery attempt at 16 - it took 15 minutes for sheriff's department to arrive after 911 call as they were coming into our home.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  The experience of "country living" in Denmark may be different than yours...
  - dfsegoat 9y ago
    Agreed - I admit I was speaking from a very 'US-centric' mindset.
- rkangel 9y ago
  I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time. In the UK, the situation is a bit different: Rural/Country living is still much closer to urban areas because the country is much smaller The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part. Personally, if that happens - despite the fact that I own 3 shotguns, I'm not going to resist. Insurance will give me back all my stuff. In my opinion I think comes down to a fundamental difference in attitudes. We're happy to let our government run things, we trust them with guns rather than anyone else. For (large segments of) the US population there isn't that trust. They don't like the idea of a government having all the power, there is a fundamental lack of trust there (please don't take that as criticism, I'm beginning to come round to that point of view!). It's the independent frontier mentality. Maybe due to difference in age of country? I don't know.
  - dfsegoat 9y ago
kjlaaskssss 9y ago
> If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best. You're not from country living. That statement you made up top seems like virtue signaling to make your seem friendly to everyone. > Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. Gun control has historically not stopped violent crime. I'll give it to you, it restricts ACCIDENTAL shootings committed by guns. But the other side of that story is that criminals still have guns, and will still kill you with them. Baby, meet bathwater. > Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. Again you're not a country kid. I'm from the west and my CCW is one of my most important possessions and a statement that I can and will defend the lives of my family and myself. > I live in Denmark. Firearm ownership is very restricted, you have to have a very good justification to own anything that isn't a hunting rifle How do you defend yourself during a robbery? Home invasion? These things aren't uniquely American. Wackos are everywhere. > Another example could be Switzerland. You can own guns and buy ammo, but there are much tighter background checks in place compared to the US. Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. Criminals don't need background checks - why do I? > they have a much more developed culture for gun safety and respect for firearms, so their rates of gun violence are extremely low. They have a culture around mandatory service in the armed forces. Their people are conditioned to see guns and aren't afraid of them - similar to pre-1970 America. It used to be that "only bad guys hid their guns" and now I have to own a CCW to defend myself because snowflakes might get offended. > as in most EU countries Yeah and things seem to be going SO WELL over there, right?
- iamatworknow 9y ago
  >Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. I live in New York state. I'm an honest citizen, and I've never been in any more trouble than a broken tail light. It took 11 months for my pistol permit to be approved, and yet there was no "strain". It was literally something I applied for and forgot about until the sheriff called to do my in-home interview, which is also required here to get your permit. Somehow it wasn't the end of the world, because I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns. The only thing that bothered me about the wait is that it doesn't apply to every state. And no, home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse. Guns are fun. Dangerous, but fun, and that's why people get them in 2017. Any other reason you or others give is a rationalization based on anecdotes of home invasions that will probably never occur in your lifetime.

microcolonel 9y ago

Comparing levels of gun violence is fallacious, though. The real question is: do guns affect the overall rate of violent crime? If guns are available, it is obvious that violent crime will more often involve them instead of knives, rope, and explosives (the other three big weapons in many places); but that alone is a neutral outcome. It is not a problem, in itself, that violent criminals use firearms to commit crimes. The problem arises when firearms enhance criminals' violent outcomes when committing violent crimes. That outcome is harder to measure and build a political campaign on, but it is infinitely more honest and productive.

Pinckney 9y ago

>I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. This isn't really workable. One of the primary ways criminal gangs acquire firearms here in the US is through "straw purchases", where they have someone with a clean record go purchase a gun for them. This works fairly well for them, but has its limits: if guns you've purchased later turn up in crimes, you're likely to face pointed questions. You can't do this too often without putting yourself at serious risk. But straw purchases of ammunition are almost impossible to track. If the buyer is asked to account for their ammunition, they can simply claim to have shot it all already. Meanwhile, it adds great expense to ammunition (My local stores mark up their ammo nearly 100% already, and it will become worse next January once it's illegal for me to order ammunition online). And because criminals actually use very little ammunition, this cost falls almost entirely on legitimate target shooters and hunters, who are the ones shooting tens of thousands of rounds a year.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
I see your point. One could also argue that ammo isn't very dangerous without a gun to fire it from, although one could be cobbled together from scrap pieces of metal.
douche 9y ago
I'm not entirely sure how it would be possible to make any secure conclusions about the provenance of a gun that was used in a crime. As far as I know, it is not legal to keep a registry of serial numbers and who they were originally sold to. Moreover, in most states, you can sell firearms privately, without any background checks or paperwork at all. I have only purchased one of my firearms in an actual gun shop - the half dozen others are inherited, or purchased from friends, family, or randos on Craigslist or Uncle Henry's. Good luck tracking back the chain of custody on some of those...

dfsegoat 9y ago

> Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. I take great issue with this. You say you came from 'country living' - but I find that hard to believe in light of your comment above. Anyone who lives in the country, where it will take the cops 10-20 minutes to respond, knows damn well why we have the 2A and the right to keep firearms in our homes for self-defense. Source: Repelled a home invasion robbery attempt at 16 - it took 15 minutes for sheriff's department to arrive after 911 call as they were coming into our home.

dllthomas 9y ago
The experience of "country living" in Denmark may be different than yours...
- dfsegoat 9y ago
  Agreed - I admit I was speaking from a very 'US-centric' mindset.
rkangel 9y ago
I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time. In the UK, the situation is a bit different: Rural/Country living is still much closer to urban areas because the country is much smaller The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part. Personally, if that happens - despite the fact that I own 3 shotguns, I'm not going to resist. Insurance will give me back all my stuff. In my opinion I think comes down to a fundamental difference in attitudes. We're happy to let our government run things, we trust them with guns rather than anyone else. For (large segments of) the US population there isn't that trust. They don't like the idea of a government having all the power, there is a fundamental lack of trust there (please don't take that as criticism, I'm beginning to come round to that point of view!). It's the independent frontier mentality. Maybe due to difference in age of country? I don't know.
- dfsegoat 9y ago

kjlaaskssss 9y ago

> If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best. You're not from country living. That statement you made up top seems like virtue signaling to make your seem friendly to everyone. > Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. Gun control has historically not stopped violent crime. I'll give it to you, it restricts ACCIDENTAL shootings committed by guns. But the other side of that story is that criminals still have guns, and will still kill you with them. Baby, meet bathwater. > Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. Again you're not a country kid. I'm from the west and my CCW is one of my most important possessions and a statement that I can and will defend the lives of my family and myself. > I live in Denmark. Firearm ownership is very restricted, you have to have a very good justification to own anything that isn't a hunting rifle How do you defend yourself during a robbery? Home invasion? These things aren't uniquely American. Wackos are everywhere. > Another example could be Switzerland. You can own guns and buy ammo, but there are much tighter background checks in place compared to the US. Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. Criminals don't need background checks - why do I? > they have a much more developed culture for gun safety and respect for firearms, so their rates of gun violence are extremely low. They have a culture around mandatory service in the armed forces. Their people are conditioned to see guns and aren't afraid of them - similar to pre-1970 America. It used to be that "only bad guys hid their guns" and now I have to own a CCW to defend myself because snowflakes might get offended. > as in most EU countries Yeah and things seem to be going SO WELL over there, right?

iamatworknow 9y ago
>Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. I live in New York state. I'm an honest citizen, and I've never been in any more trouble than a broken tail light. It took 11 months for my pistol permit to be approved, and yet there was no "strain". It was literally something I applied for and forgot about until the sheriff called to do my in-home interview, which is also required here to get your permit. Somehow it wasn't the end of the world, because I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns. The only thing that bothered me about the wait is that it doesn't apply to every state. And no, home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse. Guns are fun. Dangerous, but fun, and that's why people get them in 2017. Any other reason you or others give is a rationalization based on anecdotes of home invasions that will probably never occur in your lifetime.