4 ms·

You're right about the home defense thinking. There's been a break in at night at a neighbor 2 houses away from me. Nobody called the police, they arrived the n

by jotm 9y ago

You're right about the home defense thinking. There's been a break in at night at a neighbor 2 houses away from me. Nobody called the police, they arrived the next day with questions. No one was home, but what if they were? But take away the legality of guns and all I have is the phone, the police, a few kitchen knives and me. A gun would be a huuuge advantage. However, since few have guns, any potential assailant is also likely to not have one. It's really different for the US right now, because even if a ban was implemented, anyone with criminal intent can have one fast, while the rest can just hope the police arrive fast enough... It would take decades, a generation even, to completely remove guns from most people's lives.

throwaway5752 9y ago
I think to have a totally honest discussion you have to look at the full path of outcomes: 1) the odds of successful prevention given whether the assailants are armed with a gun or not (and the probability they are, based on policy/availability) 2) are the actually assailants or a family member sneaking in/a drunk 3) what is the probability that the weapon will be used for self harm (intentional or accidental) 4) what is the odds (to avoid presuming moral perfection of gun owners) that the gun will be used in a different crime? I don't think anyone would argue that some crime has not been prevented because of armed homeowners. The most simple reduction is that if you add together all the negative outcomes, are they balanced out by the positive and that is the sweet spot for policy. However, that ignores the positive utility that people have for the right to own firearms. Some people effectively effectively confer infinite utility to that ("Molon labe" folks) and how should society deal with such people in attempting to reach some sort of balance? ps - preemptively, "1) the odds of successful prevention given whether the assailants are armed with a gun or not (and the probability they are, based on policy/availability)" is always controversial. "criminals will always find a way to get guns"... strikes me as an altogether and false framing. We attempt to regulate all sort of harmful activities uncontroversially to great degrees of success.

by jotm 9y ago

throwaway5752 9y ago

I think to have a totally honest discussion you have to look at the full path of outcomes: 1) the odds of successful prevention given whether the assailants are armed with a gun or not (and the probability they are, based on policy/availability) 2) are the actually assailants or a family member sneaking in/a drunk 3) what is the probability that the weapon will be used for self harm (intentional or accidental) 4) what is the odds (to avoid presuming moral perfection of gun owners) that the gun will be used in a different crime? I don't think anyone would argue that some crime has not been prevented because of armed homeowners. The most simple reduction is that if you add together all the negative outcomes, are they balanced out by the positive and that is the sweet spot for policy. However, that ignores the positive utility that people have for the right to own firearms. Some people effectively effectively confer infinite utility to that ("Molon labe" folks) and how should society deal with such people in attempting to reach some sort of balance? ps - preemptively, "1) the odds of successful prevention given whether the assailants are armed with a gun or not (and the probability they are, based on policy/availability)" is always controversial. "criminals will always find a way to get guns"... strikes me as an altogether and false framing. We attempt to regulate all sort of harmful activities uncontroversially to great degrees of success.