3 ms·

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't agree with you that our current gun situation is worth it as insurance against tyranny, but I can at least understa

by hsod 9y ago

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't agree with you that our current gun situation is worth it as insurance against tyranny, but I can at least understand where you're coming from. I think your "gun-ignorant" argument amounts to gate-keeping. People's opinions on gun control still matter even if they don't use the same lingo as gun-lovers.

angersock 9y ago
> People's opinions on gun control still matter even if they don't use the same lingo as gun-lovers. I respectfully disagree. I don't think people can have opinions on public policy worth listening to unless they at least possess a novice knowledge and experience of the matter they would see legislation on. I wouldn't trust a virgin nun to vote on women's rights, I wouldn't trust anybody in congress to make laws on cybersecurity, I wouldn't trust somebody who has never cooked anything to make regulations for kitchens. I don't trust teetotalers to make regulations on alcohol or drugs. Similarly, I don't believe that people who've never fired, cleaned, trained others, and owned firearms to have useful opinions on those tools. EDIT: (And it's more than just "lingo"...there are systematic disinformation and FUD as mentioned above against firearms. It's not a harmless "you called it a foo when it's a foobar".) To be clear, I'm not against people having opinions privately--it's just when those opinions are going to be used to make public policy that affects others and may infringe upon their rights that I become testy.
- hsod 9y ago
  > Similarly, I don't believe that people who've never fired, cleaned, trained others, and owned firearms to have useful opinions on those tools. I don't think that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. Is my opinion worthless because I've never seen, touched, owned, or detonated one?
  - angersock 9y ago
    Nukes are rare enough and difficult enough to manufacture that I'm not sure it even makes sense to use them as a counter-example. Maybe try something a little less hyperbolic?
    - hsod 9y ago
      Why? The point is the same. One need not be an expert on something to come to a justified believe that it does more harm than good. One of the consequences of your argument is that the only opinions that matter in the gun debate are those of gun enthusiasts. Doesn't pass the smell test.
      - angersock 9y ago
        >* One of the consequences of your argument is that the only opinions that matter in the gun debate are those of gun enthusiasts.* So, I see where you'd be getting that impression, but that's not what I mean to convey. I don't think that you have to be a "gun enthusiast" to have a worthwhile opinion on public policy--you just have to have some actual first-hand experience and knowledge of the thing. My concern is that it seems like the majority of people who push for gun control are not educated in firearms safety or operation, and so are vocal but easily mislead.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I don't think people can have opinions on public policy worth listening to unless they at least possess a novice knowledge and experience of the matter they would see legislation on. Right, which is why if you are a layman with no study of or practice of law, you aren't entitled to any opinion on any area of public policy that involves law.
- xelxebar 9y ago
  Well, making good policy is an extremely different skill than sharpshooting. I think the crux of your point could be sharpened to a question, "In addition to policy-making experience and skills, how much gun firing experience does one need to make relevant and effective gun policy?" An answer to this question probably depends on the specific concerns we wish policy to address. If it has to do with detailed classification of firearms, then significant experience is probably required. Whereas if we only care about reducing overall gun sales, specific firearm experience is probably less relevant or useful. These are just dummy examples, but I hope my point is a bit clearer than mud.

by hsod 9y ago

angersock 9y ago

> People's opinions on gun control still matter even if they don't use the same lingo as gun-lovers. I respectfully disagree. I don't think people can have opinions on public policy worth listening to unless they at least possess a novice knowledge and experience of the matter they would see legislation on. I wouldn't trust a virgin nun to vote on women's rights, I wouldn't trust anybody in congress to make laws on cybersecurity, I wouldn't trust somebody who has never cooked anything to make regulations for kitchens. I don't trust teetotalers to make regulations on alcohol or drugs. Similarly, I don't believe that people who've never fired, cleaned, trained others, and owned firearms to have useful opinions on those tools. EDIT: (And it's more than just "lingo"...there are systematic disinformation and FUD as mentioned above against firearms. It's not a harmless "you called it a foo when it's a foobar".) To be clear, I'm not against people having opinions privately--it's just when those opinions are going to be used to make public policy that affects others and may infringe upon their rights that I become testy.

hsod 9y ago
> Similarly, I don't believe that people who've never fired, cleaned, trained others, and owned firearms to have useful opinions on those tools. I don't think that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. Is my opinion worthless because I've never seen, touched, owned, or detonated one?
- angersock 9y ago
  Nukes are rare enough and difficult enough to manufacture that I'm not sure it even makes sense to use them as a counter-example. Maybe try something a little less hyperbolic?
  - hsod 9y ago
    Why? The point is the same. One need not be an expert on something to come to a justified believe that it does more harm than good. One of the consequences of your argument is that the only opinions that matter in the gun debate are those of gun enthusiasts. Doesn't pass the smell test.
    - angersock 9y ago
      >* One of the consequences of your argument is that the only opinions that matter in the gun debate are those of gun enthusiasts.* So, I see where you'd be getting that impression, but that's not what I mean to convey. I don't think that you have to be a "gun enthusiast" to have a worthwhile opinion on public policy--you just have to have some actual first-hand experience and knowledge of the thing. My concern is that it seems like the majority of people who push for gun control are not educated in firearms safety or operation, and so are vocal but easily mislead.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I don't think people can have opinions on public policy worth listening to unless they at least possess a novice knowledge and experience of the matter they would see legislation on. Right, which is why if you are a layman with no study of or practice of law, you aren't entitled to any opinion on any area of public policy that involves law.
xelxebar 9y ago
Well, making good policy is an extremely different skill than sharpshooting. I think the crux of your point could be sharpened to a question, "In addition to policy-making experience and skills, how much gun firing experience does one need to make relevant and effective gun policy?" An answer to this question probably depends on the specific concerns we wish policy to address. If it has to do with detailed classification of firearms, then significant experience is probably required. Whereas if we only care about reducing overall gun sales, specific firearm experience is probably less relevant or useful. These are just dummy examples, but I hope my point is a bit clearer than mud.