10 ms·

"The media frenzy makes this look like some kind of out-of-control epidemic, but that's just not the case." That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are g

"The media frenzy makes this look like some kind of out-of-control epidemic, but that's just not the case." That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. "people are approaching the topic emotionally rather than rationally and proposing extreme reactions" Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction".

matte_black 9y ago
First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. The problem is, as soon as someone stands up and says “Oh hey here’s an idea why don’t we just ban all guns lol!!” then you know the conversation is over, and after that point it’s just a downward spiral. Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. Not with tear-fueled rage. The people you are arguing with didn’t shoot and kill your family, in fact quite the opposite, if they had the chance they would probably jump at the opportunity of saving them with a firearm. You could argue whether or not they’d be effective, but it’s the thought that counts.
- dabeeeenster 9y ago
  "Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility" Not all gun owners.
- jjoonathan 9y ago
  Since HN only shows vote totals, I want you to know that you aren't alone.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Thank you, it will be some comfort after this post has long been downvoted and dead.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Whatever in the world are you talking about? Forget about the strawmen in your head and read what people are actually saying here.
- pasabagi 9y ago
  Coming from a country where people don't have guns, I don't really see the problem with no guns. They're an awful public health risk. They have basically no advantages. Even for their use in suicide alone, they would be just as reasonable to ban as any commodity you could name - for instance, heroin, or dynamite, or crystal meth.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Come spend some time with gun owners here in the states, and you won’t see a problem with people owning guns either.
    - pasabagi 9y ago
      I'm sure there are many nice, reasonable gun owners. If I lived in the states, I'd probably buy a gun myself - I think they're cool. On the other hand, as a reasonable, intelligent adult who reads and understands statistics, I can say without any doubt they are awful for the USA as a whole. So, just like I'd ban leaded gas, selling alcohol to ten year-olds, and driving drunk, I'd ban guns. There are many, many less harmful things to go full-libertarian on than machines designed to kill people.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    They absolutely have the advantage of putting a check on government power. The US is a very heterogeneous country (probably much more so than the country you’re referencing). Not all groups have a great relationship with the government and very sensibly feel that giving the government a monopoly on firearms is not in their best interest.
    - pasabagi 9y ago
      This argument is absurd. Most of the time, Americans can't organize enough to start a union, or even join one. The idea of Americans organizing an insurgency is ridiculous. The idea of Americans winning an insurgency, against the largest army in the world - an army that has more counter-insurgency experience than anybody except perhaps the IDF, is still more ridiculous. Guns will never check anything because the only thing that checks power is another powerful organization - a protest movement, or a union. Guns are what happen when a protest movement fails, and if you're relying on civilian-grade stuff at this point, your protest movement is screwed anyway.
- CodeMage 9y ago
  > First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. It probably doesn't mean what I think, either, yet we're all still perfectly capable of understanding GP's point. > Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. I don't think it's intellectually honest to blame it all on "anti-gun crowd", especially since we're talking about a highly heterogeneous group. It would be equally dishonest to just blame it all on "pro-gun crowd" being overly emotional and riled up by NRA. > Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. I'm sure all gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, just as much as every gun-control activist is for banning all guns. Here's an interesting question: if so many gun owners really do support sensible gun control laws, how come this country hasn't had sensible gun control laws put in place to deal with this problem? And let's not pretend it's not a problem, either. > Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. I completely agree. A rational, sober approach to these issues does not go down the path of laying blame exclusively on one side of the debate, no matter which side that is.
  - Veelox 9y ago
    > if so many gun owners really do support sensible gun control laws Would you be willing to outline what you count as sensible gun control laws and what you hope to accomplish with these gun laws?
    - QuadmasterXLII 9y ago
      First off, legalizing CDC research into gun violence seems like a reasonable step
      - Veelox 9y ago
        I think that would be a great first step. For it to be acceptable it will need to be very careful to ensure the privacy of gun owners.
      - 9y ago
- rocqua 9y ago
  I want to point out an imbalance in your reasoning. Essentially, you are judging both sides by a different standard. > how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets > someone stands up and says “Oh hey here’s an idea why don’t we just ban all guns lol!!” Here, you are essentially judging gun-opponents by their worst examples. That is, you are judging them by their members that are loud and unreasonable. > Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. Here, you are judging gun-owners and presumably those who are against all firearms being illegal by something better than their worst examples. When you say "Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility" you are essentially judging this group by their ideals, not their practice. Moreover, it seems unlikely that literally all gun owners actually hold these ideals. Those that don't are a fringe crowd, but you judged the 'anti-gun' people by that same fringe. Now, I am not accusing you, this is rather natural. You yourself are a gun-owner that is responsible and cares about safety, and most if not all gun-owners you know are the same. So, it makes sense to assume that this holds for all gun-owners. At the same time, the less outrageous gun-opponents are much less noticeable to you. Mostly because outrageous things get propagated. Note that the opposite happens among gun-opponents. They share outrageously irresponsible gun-owners, and presume gun-opponents are reasonable like themselves. To make actual progress on gun laws, we need to start engaging the reasonable part of the opposing side. This still involves tough choices, because in the end one side wants to restrict gun ownership a lot more than the other side. Gun-owners are afraid to give ground because it might be a slippery slope, and gun-opponents are frustrated that even the most reasonable proposals are rejected.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  The pro gun crowd is as irrational, if not more, than the anti gun crowd. Ever since the NRA in the late 1970s shifted its focus away from responsible gun use to guns as a means to fight against internal tyranny, the “Personal responsibility” aspect has fallen by the wayside. Any laws attempting to enforce personal responsibility (insurance, storage) as in other gun using countries (Germany, Switzerland) are promptly lobbied against because that isn’t what that side is about anymore.
  - aaaaaaaaaaa12 9y ago
    You're calling the other side irrational, and yet you're comparing America with a homogeneous nation that is 95% white. Why not use Latin American countries that have very strict gun control laws instead of Germany?
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      I don't see how race has anything to do with this. America is supposedly a first world developed country, not a third world undeveloped or developing one, though we are often left wondering.
- kelnos 9y ago
  > Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility If that were universally true, we wouldn't have so many gun deaths in the US. I absolutely believe that some (perhaps even many) gun owners handle their guns safely and responsibly, but the laws ensuring such safety and responsibility are few and far between and lack teeth. > Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. Not with tear-fueled rage. You're attacking a straw man here. The majority of the pro gun control crowd pushes sensible restrictions and limits on firearm ownership: universal background checks, stricter controls on what can disqualify some people from owning a gun, mandatory training and licensing, restrictions on ammo purchases and magazine size (notice how I'm not even mentioning "assault weapons" here). Sure, there are some (unfortunately loud) people who scream "ban all guns", which isn't productive to the discussion, but those people are in the minority. In the end, we can't even get these sensible regulations in place due to rabid groups like the NRA that spread FUD and whip their constituents into a frenzy.
  - Veelox 9y ago
    >universal background checks This would be worth doing. >stricter controls on what can disqualify some people from owning a gun Possible but it would depend on what you wanted to disqualify people for. >mandatory training and licensing I don't think this is reasonable or politically feasible. >restrictions on ammo purchases Not sure what good this would do in reducing gun deaths. You would be hitting target shooter pretty hard for not much gain. >restrictions on ... magazine size I don't see how this would be very helpful and always strikes me as something advocated for by people who don't understand guns very much. It's part of why you see such opposition to it.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      > > mandatory training and licensing > I don't think this is reasonable or politically feasible. I agree that it's not politically feasible, but am curious as to why you don't think it's a reasonable requirement. No one reasonably complains against people have to complete a training course in order to get a driver's license (or to the requirement of a license itself). Both activities require a proper understanding of operation and safety, and operation and safety failures of both can easily result in severe injury and death. Ignoring the political issues around this, I'm entirely baffled how the idea of this requirement could be considered unreasonable. > > restrictions on ammo purchases > Not sure what good this would do in reducing gun deaths. You would be hitting target shooter pretty hard for not much gain. In the recent Las Vegas shooting, the shooter reportedly fired several hundreds of rounds. Presumably if he had been legally limited to owning, say 50 or 100 rounds (more than enough for self defense in the home, and sufficient for most hunting outings), fewer injuries and deaths would have occurred. I will grant the argument that mass shootings are by far the smallest percentage of gun deaths; you only need a single round to commit suicide or for a child to accidentally shoot him/herself, or a few rounds to kill your family, so this sort of limit wouldn't help there. Regarding target shooters, I think we can easily make an exception for ammo purchased and used at a licensed gun range, as long as the ammo purchased for target use does not leave the gun range. (Shoot it or lose it, basically.) But I think at the end of the day the question is "what can reduce unlawful harm without putting an undue burden on lawful use?" ... and I think ammo purchase/ownership limits pass that test. > > restrictions on ... magazine size > I don't see how this would be very helpful and always strikes me as something advocated for by people who don't understand guns very much. It's part of why you see such opposition to it. Perhaps not, and I'll admit I'm certainly no gun expert. But a reload or magazine swap isn't instant, and in the case where a shooter is actively engaged with law enforcement, having to pause to reload after (say) 10 rounds instead of 50 could easily mean fewer deaths. Again, if I apply the test I suggest above, I think it passes. I'll also admit that I personally do not believe in the need or fundamental "right" of private firearm ownership. I'd be fine with a repeal of the 2nd Amendment with an explicit directive to allow the individual states to make their own gun laws, and would be fine if my state banned private gun ownership entirely... so I'm comfortable with many more restrictions than probably most people are. I have no interest in owning a gun and find the vast majority of the reasons people use to argue for gun ownership to be entirely disingenuous. At the end of the day, aside from minor exceptions, the only real reason is "I think they're cool and fun and I and just want one". Which is totally fair and legitimate, and I wish more people would admit that's the real reason they support private gun ownership.
lolsal 9y ago
> That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. 'Epidemic' is usually used to refer to the rate of spread of something. This sort of hyperbole is exactly why it's hard to have honest or productive discussions about this topic. > Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction". I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel altering (or violating) the Bill of Rights is an "extreme reaction". Getting the USA constitution modified takes a lot of effort and is a big deal.
- tacomonstrous 9y ago
  >I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel altering (or violating) the Bill of Rights is an "extreme reaction". Getting the USA constitution modified takes a lot of effort and is a big deal. No, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that we interpret the 2nd amendment differently. There is clear precedence for limits on arms ownership. It's just a question of where they should be.
- dabeeeenster 9y ago
  I'm British, so I'm not really concerned by it. The US is collectively losing its mind, on many levels.
  - uhhyeahdude 9y ago
    Well, it's a good thing that the countries are not tied to one another, Politically, Economically, Diplomatically, Socially. . .
  - merb 9y ago
    To be fair, the European's and British, losing their mind on many levels as well. (I'm german)
    - masonic 9y ago
      It's a good thing that the crazy European, British, and Americans were around to counter those sane, rational Germans in the 1940s.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

matte_black 9y ago

First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. The problem is, as soon as someone stands up and says “Oh hey here’s an idea why don’t we just ban all guns lol!!” then you know the conversation is over, and after that point it’s just a downward spiral. Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. Not with tear-fueled rage. The people you are arguing with didn’t shoot and kill your family, in fact quite the opposite, if they had the chance they would probably jump at the opportunity of saving them with a firearm. You could argue whether or not they’d be effective, but it’s the thought that counts.

dabeeeenster 9y ago
"Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility" Not all gun owners.
jjoonathan 9y ago
Since HN only shows vote totals, I want you to know that you aren't alone.
- matte_black 9y ago
  Thank you, it will be some comfort after this post has long been downvoted and dead.
euyyn 9y ago
Whatever in the world are you talking about? Forget about the strawmen in your head and read what people are actually saying here.
pasabagi 9y ago
Coming from a country where people don't have guns, I don't really see the problem with no guns. They're an awful public health risk. They have basically no advantages. Even for their use in suicide alone, they would be just as reasonable to ban as any commodity you could name - for instance, heroin, or dynamite, or crystal meth.
- matte_black 9y ago
  Come spend some time with gun owners here in the states, and you won’t see a problem with people owning guns either.
  - pasabagi 9y ago
    I'm sure there are many nice, reasonable gun owners. If I lived in the states, I'd probably buy a gun myself - I think they're cool. On the other hand, as a reasonable, intelligent adult who reads and understands statistics, I can say without any doubt they are awful for the USA as a whole. So, just like I'd ban leaded gas, selling alcohol to ten year-olds, and driving drunk, I'd ban guns. There are many, many less harmful things to go full-libertarian on than machines designed to kill people.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  They absolutely have the advantage of putting a check on government power. The US is a very heterogeneous country (probably much more so than the country you’re referencing). Not all groups have a great relationship with the government and very sensibly feel that giving the government a monopoly on firearms is not in their best interest.
  - pasabagi 9y ago
    This argument is absurd. Most of the time, Americans can't organize enough to start a union, or even join one. The idea of Americans organizing an insurgency is ridiculous. The idea of Americans winning an insurgency, against the largest army in the world - an army that has more counter-insurgency experience than anybody except perhaps the IDF, is still more ridiculous. Guns will never check anything because the only thing that checks power is another powerful organization - a protest movement, or a union. Guns are what happen when a protest movement fails, and if you're relying on civilian-grade stuff at this point, your protest movement is screwed anyway.
CodeMage 9y ago
> First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. It probably doesn't mean what I think, either, yet we're all still perfectly capable of understanding GP's point. > Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. I don't think it's intellectually honest to blame it all on "anti-gun crowd", especially since we're talking about a highly heterogeneous group. It would be equally dishonest to just blame it all on "pro-gun crowd" being overly emotional and riled up by NRA. > Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. I'm sure all gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, just as much as every gun-control activist is for banning all guns. Here's an interesting question: if so many gun owners really do support sensible gun control laws, how come this country hasn't had sensible gun control laws put in place to deal with this problem? And let's not pretend it's not a problem, either. > Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. I completely agree. A rational, sober approach to these issues does not go down the path of laying blame exclusively on one side of the debate, no matter which side that is.
- Veelox 9y ago
  > if so many gun owners really do support sensible gun control laws Would you be willing to outline what you count as sensible gun control laws and what you hope to accomplish with these gun laws?
  - QuadmasterXLII 9y ago
    First off, legalizing CDC research into gun violence seems like a reasonable step
    - Veelox 9y ago
      I think that would be a great first step. For it to be acceptable it will need to be very careful to ensure the privacy of gun owners.
    - 9y ago
rocqua 9y ago
I want to point out an imbalance in your reasoning. Essentially, you are judging both sides by a different standard. > how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets > someone stands up and says “Oh hey here’s an idea why don’t we just ban all guns lol!!” Here, you are essentially judging gun-opponents by their worst examples. That is, you are judging them by their members that are loud and unreasonable. > Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. Here, you are judging gun-owners and presumably those who are against all firearms being illegal by something better than their worst examples. When you say "Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility" you are essentially judging this group by their ideals, not their practice. Moreover, it seems unlikely that literally all gun owners actually hold these ideals. Those that don't are a fringe crowd, but you judged the 'anti-gun' people by that same fringe. Now, I am not accusing you, this is rather natural. You yourself are a gun-owner that is responsible and cares about safety, and most if not all gun-owners you know are the same. So, it makes sense to assume that this holds for all gun-owners. At the same time, the less outrageous gun-opponents are much less noticeable to you. Mostly because outrageous things get propagated. Note that the opposite happens among gun-opponents. They share outrageously irresponsible gun-owners, and presume gun-opponents are reasonable like themselves. To make actual progress on gun laws, we need to start engaging the reasonable part of the opposing side. This still involves tough choices, because in the end one side wants to restrict gun ownership a lot more than the other side. Gun-owners are afraid to give ground because it might be a slippery slope, and gun-opponents are frustrated that even the most reasonable proposals are rejected.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
The pro gun crowd is as irrational, if not more, than the anti gun crowd. Ever since the NRA in the late 1970s shifted its focus away from responsible gun use to guns as a means to fight against internal tyranny, the “Personal responsibility” aspect has fallen by the wayside. Any laws attempting to enforce personal responsibility (insurance, storage) as in other gun using countries (Germany, Switzerland) are promptly lobbied against because that isn’t what that side is about anymore.
- aaaaaaaaaaa12 9y ago
  You're calling the other side irrational, and yet you're comparing America with a homogeneous nation that is 95% white. Why not use Latin American countries that have very strict gun control laws instead of Germany?
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    I don't see how race has anything to do with this. America is supposedly a first world developed country, not a third world undeveloped or developing one, though we are often left wondering.
kelnos 9y ago
> Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility If that were universally true, we wouldn't have so many gun deaths in the US. I absolutely believe that some (perhaps even many) gun owners handle their guns safely and responsibly, but the laws ensuring such safety and responsibility are few and far between and lack teeth. > Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. Not with tear-fueled rage. You're attacking a straw man here. The majority of the pro gun control crowd pushes sensible restrictions and limits on firearm ownership: universal background checks, stricter controls on what can disqualify some people from owning a gun, mandatory training and licensing, restrictions on ammo purchases and magazine size (notice how I'm not even mentioning "assault weapons" here). Sure, there are some (unfortunately loud) people who scream "ban all guns", which isn't productive to the discussion, but those people are in the minority. In the end, we can't even get these sensible regulations in place due to rabid groups like the NRA that spread FUD and whip their constituents into a frenzy.
- Veelox 9y ago
  >universal background checks This would be worth doing. >stricter controls on what can disqualify some people from owning a gun Possible but it would depend on what you wanted to disqualify people for. >mandatory training and licensing I don't think this is reasonable or politically feasible. >restrictions on ammo purchases Not sure what good this would do in reducing gun deaths. You would be hitting target shooter pretty hard for not much gain. >restrictions on ... magazine size I don't see how this would be very helpful and always strikes me as something advocated for by people who don't understand guns very much. It's part of why you see such opposition to it.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > > mandatory training and licensing > I don't think this is reasonable or politically feasible. I agree that it's not politically feasible, but am curious as to why you don't think it's a reasonable requirement. No one reasonably complains against people have to complete a training course in order to get a driver's license (or to the requirement of a license itself). Both activities require a proper understanding of operation and safety, and operation and safety failures of both can easily result in severe injury and death. Ignoring the political issues around this, I'm entirely baffled how the idea of this requirement could be considered unreasonable. > > restrictions on ammo purchases > Not sure what good this would do in reducing gun deaths. You would be hitting target shooter pretty hard for not much gain. In the recent Las Vegas shooting, the shooter reportedly fired several hundreds of rounds. Presumably if he had been legally limited to owning, say 50 or 100 rounds (more than enough for self defense in the home, and sufficient for most hunting outings), fewer injuries and deaths would have occurred. I will grant the argument that mass shootings are by far the smallest percentage of gun deaths; you only need a single round to commit suicide or for a child to accidentally shoot him/herself, or a few rounds to kill your family, so this sort of limit wouldn't help there. Regarding target shooters, I think we can easily make an exception for ammo purchased and used at a licensed gun range, as long as the ammo purchased for target use does not leave the gun range. (Shoot it or lose it, basically.) But I think at the end of the day the question is "what can reduce unlawful harm without putting an undue burden on lawful use?" ... and I think ammo purchase/ownership limits pass that test. > > restrictions on ... magazine size > I don't see how this would be very helpful and always strikes me as something advocated for by people who don't understand guns very much. It's part of why you see such opposition to it. Perhaps not, and I'll admit I'm certainly no gun expert. But a reload or magazine swap isn't instant, and in the case where a shooter is actively engaged with law enforcement, having to pause to reload after (say) 10 rounds instead of 50 could easily mean fewer deaths. Again, if I apply the test I suggest above, I think it passes. I'll also admit that I personally do not believe in the need or fundamental "right" of private firearm ownership. I'd be fine with a repeal of the 2nd Amendment with an explicit directive to allow the individual states to make their own gun laws, and would be fine if my state banned private gun ownership entirely... so I'm comfortable with many more restrictions than probably most people are. I have no interest in owning a gun and find the vast majority of the reasons people use to argue for gun ownership to be entirely disingenuous. At the end of the day, aside from minor exceptions, the only real reason is "I think they're cool and fun and I and just want one". Which is totally fair and legitimate, and I wish more people would admit that's the real reason they support private gun ownership.

lolsal 9y ago

> That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. 'Epidemic' is usually used to refer to the rate of spread of something. This sort of hyperbole is exactly why it's hard to have honest or productive discussions about this topic. > Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction". I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel altering (or violating) the Bill of Rights is an "extreme reaction". Getting the USA constitution modified takes a lot of effort and is a big deal.

tacomonstrous 9y ago
>I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel altering (or violating) the Bill of Rights is an "extreme reaction". Getting the USA constitution modified takes a lot of effort and is a big deal. No, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that we interpret the 2nd amendment differently. There is clear precedence for limits on arms ownership. It's just a question of where they should be.
dabeeeenster 9y ago
I'm British, so I'm not really concerned by it. The US is collectively losing its mind, on many levels.
- uhhyeahdude 9y ago
  Well, it's a good thing that the countries are not tied to one another, Politically, Economically, Diplomatically, Socially. . .
- merb 9y ago
  To be fair, the European's and British, losing their mind on many levels as well. (I'm german)
  - masonic 9y ago
    It's a good thing that the crazy European, British, and Americans were around to counter those sane, rational Germans in the 1940s.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]