29 ms·

American society is quite interesting in that there is a belief that rights are absolute and any negative effects just have to be accepted as an unfortunate sid

American society is quite interesting in that there is a belief that rights are absolute and any negative effects just have to be accepted as an unfortunate side effect of those rights. Firearms are the topic where this seems to apply the hardest. The USA is the only country in the world that allows any citizen (except those declared unfit, i.e. felons) to own a firearm with the express intention of using it to kill people. Even if you don't intend to go out and shoot somebody, buying a handgun or a shotgun for home defence is buying one with the intention of killing people. So of course, with this uninfringed right, you have people killing their spouse, children accidentally killing their family members, people seeking help after a car crash getting shot [1], increased rates of suicide, etc. etc. That's not to mention otherwise lawful firearms owners shooting up schools, churches, and theaters. These are all negative side-effects of unrestricted firearms ownership. Of course, there are benefits. Theoretically the people can stop a tyrannical government. People can stop home invaders, muggers, rapists, abusive ex-partners, etc. I can understand the argument that people have a right to own arm themselves to stop the above from happening. But on balance, is there more or less pain and suffering from this right to bear arms? The same applies to freedom of speech. The concept of (almost) complete unrestricted freedom of speech is very American. Most countries have laws against hate speech or laws against incitement to violence with a much lower threshold than the USA. Germany bans Nazis, and they have a very good reason to, given their history. There seems to be this common thread of argument in regards to "constitutional rights" that if they aren't absolute, the USA will turn into Nazi Germany. It's a false dichotomy. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/renisha-mcbride-detroit-woman-shot-to-death-while-seeking-help-after-a-car-accident-family-says/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/renisha-mcbride-detroit-woman-s...

pdonis 8y ago
> So of course, with this uninfringed right, you have people killing their spouse, children accidentally killing their family members, people seeking help after a car crash getting shot [1], increased rates of suicide, etc. etc. That's not to mention otherwise lawful firearms owners shooting up schools, churches, and theaters. You're leaving out some key factors. First, firearm violence in the US (like violence in general) is highly locality dependent. It's not a coincidence that the incident you linked to of a woman getting shot while seeking help after a car accident happened in Detroit. Most of the US has a rate of violence (firearm and otherwise) than is at or below the norm in European countries like Switzerland. The statistics you see don't show this because they average over the entire country instead of separating out the particular areas where almost all of the violence actually happens. Second, the localities in the US that have high rates of violence, including firearm violence, are all inner cities that have been run for decades by liberal governments that have imposed strict controls on firearm ownership. The rest of the US, which, as above, looks like Switzerland as far as violence is concerned, has much more reasonable policies on firearm ownership. So at least in the US, the data does not support the common claim that gun control reduces firearm violence; it supports the opposite claim. Third, the mass shootings that make the news are most often not perpetrated using firearms that were legally owned by the shooters. Either they were legally owned by someone else and the shooter got access to them (illegally), or they were illegally obtained by the shooter in the first place.
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  You don't even attempt to cite any stats that would show that non-urban America is as safe as Europe. And it's a stretch to believe because Europe doesn't have semi-regular gun massacres, which aren't actually happening in inner cities. Guns are widely available in high crime areas because it's trivial to travel to a jurisdiction where buying them is legal. We also have very little liability for what happens with a gun you own or sale when it's not in your possession. If this weren't the case, you'd see much fewer firearms getting into the hands of criminals.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > Europe doesn't have semi-regular gun massacres https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun... > semi-regular gun massacres, which aren't actually happening in inner cities. You're right, "inner cities" was too narrow. "Urban areas" would be better. The point is that the localities are isolated; they aren't evenly spread across the US, they're concentrated in certain places, and those places all have a common factor that I described.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > We also have very little liability for what happens with a gun you own or sale when it's not in your possession For "own", yes, you're right; greater accountability for gun owners who let others use their guns would be a good idea. For "sale", not so much; selling something means transferring ownership, which means once you've sold it, you aren't responsible any more because you aren't the owner. The new owner is the one who should be held responsible.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > You don't even attempt to cite any stats Neither did the post I responded to. See here for some stats on US gun violence in 2018 (the site also has data for past years): http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps
yellowapple 8y ago
"Even if you don't intend to go out and shoot somebody, buying a handgun or a shotgun for home defence is buying one with the intention of killing people." Not necessarily. Even assuming there's an intention to fire the gun in the first place (it might be meant as a deterrent), there also might be the intention to only wound the assailant. Not all gunshots are fatal, after all. Of course, even a shot to the leg can be fatal, but the intent is still not to kill.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  If you've ever handled a firearm, you will have been told to only ever point it at something you intend to kill. Any shot is a potentially lethal shot, and the only reason that a gun is a deterrent is that you have the potential to kill the assailant.

pdonis 8y ago

> So of course, with this uninfringed right, you have people killing their spouse, children accidentally killing their family members, people seeking help after a car crash getting shot [1], increased rates of suicide, etc. etc. That's not to mention otherwise lawful firearms owners shooting up schools, churches, and theaters. You're leaving out some key factors. First, firearm violence in the US (like violence in general) is highly locality dependent. It's not a coincidence that the incident you linked to of a woman getting shot while seeking help after a car accident happened in Detroit. Most of the US has a rate of violence (firearm and otherwise) than is at or below the norm in European countries like Switzerland. The statistics you see don't show this because they average over the entire country instead of separating out the particular areas where almost all of the violence actually happens. Second, the localities in the US that have high rates of violence, including firearm violence, are all inner cities that have been run for decades by liberal governments that have imposed strict controls on firearm ownership. The rest of the US, which, as above, looks like Switzerland as far as violence is concerned, has much more reasonable policies on firearm ownership. So at least in the US, the data does not support the common claim that gun control reduces firearm violence; it supports the opposite claim. Third, the mass shootings that make the news are most often not perpetrated using firearms that were legally owned by the shooters. Either they were legally owned by someone else and the shooter got access to them (illegally), or they were illegally obtained by the shooter in the first place.

acjohnson55 8y ago
You don't even attempt to cite any stats that would show that non-urban America is as safe as Europe. And it's a stretch to believe because Europe doesn't have semi-regular gun massacres, which aren't actually happening in inner cities. Guns are widely available in high crime areas because it's trivial to travel to a jurisdiction where buying them is legal. We also have very little liability for what happens with a gun you own or sale when it's not in your possession. If this weren't the case, you'd see much fewer firearms getting into the hands of criminals.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Europe doesn't have semi-regular gun massacres https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun... > semi-regular gun massacres, which aren't actually happening in inner cities. You're right, "inner cities" was too narrow. "Urban areas" would be better. The point is that the localities are isolated; they aren't evenly spread across the US, they're concentrated in certain places, and those places all have a common factor that I described.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > We also have very little liability for what happens with a gun you own or sale when it's not in your possession For "own", yes, you're right; greater accountability for gun owners who let others use their guns would be a good idea. For "sale", not so much; selling something means transferring ownership, which means once you've sold it, you aren't responsible any more because you aren't the owner. The new owner is the one who should be held responsible.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > You don't even attempt to cite any stats Neither did the post I responded to. See here for some stats on US gun violence in 2018 (the site also has data for past years): http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps

yellowapple 8y ago

"Even if you don't intend to go out and shoot somebody, buying a handgun or a shotgun for home defence is buying one with the intention of killing people." Not necessarily. Even assuming there's an intention to fire the gun in the first place (it might be meant as a deterrent), there also might be the intention to only wound the assailant. Not all gunshots are fatal, after all. Of course, even a shot to the leg can be fatal, but the intent is still not to kill.

toomanybeersies 8y ago
If you've ever handled a firearm, you will have been told to only ever point it at something you intend to kill. Any shot is a potentially lethal shot, and the only reason that a gun is a deterrent is that you have the potential to kill the assailant.