5 ms·

I think that both having guns makes it marginally less likely that either shoots. That applies at both the micro and macro scale.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Then given the proliferation of firearms in the US, the firearm-related homicide and injury rates should be lower than in countries that ban firearms (not absolute instances; lower rates, if more guns makes it marginally less likely that any party shoots). They are not.
- hcurtiss 7y ago
  In most (nearly all?) circumstances, one party is not armed.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Then at what ratio of armed citizens do the benefits you anticipate kick in? 60%? 80%? Should we all expect to show up to church strapped with a 9mm, just in case? Can you provide an example of a country where such a high ratio of armed citizenry has worked out well? There should be a positive example we can turn to. The US isn't it by the numbers.
    - hcurtiss 7y ago
      I never claimed gun ownership reduced gun violence overall, but excluding suicide it doesn’t seem to increase it either.[1] At the macro scale, I only mean to say it makes hostile government action less likely. Likewise, at the micro scale, I only mean to say violent confrontation between individuals is less likely when both parties are armed than when only one is armed. This much to me seems self evident (and underpins the macro thesis as well). At the micro scale, I might agree that there would be less gun violence if neither party were armed, but mass confiscation will never happen in the US. It would be ineffective given the lack of a central registry and it would likely incite civil war. In that light, even barring the macro thesis, it strikes me as prudent to be among the armed. With, of course, basic safety training. [1]https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a...
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        I don't actually think mass confiscation would be necessary. Offer nationwide buyback and severely curtail manufacture and first-sale, and the equations change wildly. America is hyper-capitalist and capitalist incentives tend to work on people. It's win-win; those who want their guns more than the money can keep their guns.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Then given the proliferation of firearms in the US, the firearm-related homicide and injury rates should be lower than in countries that ban firearms (not absolute instances; lower rates, if more guns makes it marginally less likely that any party shoots). They are not.

hcurtiss 7y ago
In most (nearly all?) circumstances, one party is not armed.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Then at what ratio of armed citizens do the benefits you anticipate kick in? 60%? 80%? Should we all expect to show up to church strapped with a 9mm, just in case? Can you provide an example of a country where such a high ratio of armed citizenry has worked out well? There should be a positive example we can turn to. The US isn't it by the numbers.
  - hcurtiss 7y ago
    I never claimed gun ownership reduced gun violence overall, but excluding suicide it doesn’t seem to increase it either.[1] At the macro scale, I only mean to say it makes hostile government action less likely. Likewise, at the micro scale, I only mean to say violent confrontation between individuals is less likely when both parties are armed than when only one is armed. This much to me seems self evident (and underpins the macro thesis as well). At the micro scale, I might agree that there would be less gun violence if neither party were armed, but mass confiscation will never happen in the US. It would be ineffective given the lack of a central registry and it would likely incite civil war. In that light, even barring the macro thesis, it strikes me as prudent to be among the armed. With, of course, basic safety training. [1]https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a...
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      I don't actually think mass confiscation would be necessary. Offer nationwide buyback and severely curtail manufacture and first-sale, and the equations change wildly. America is hyper-capitalist and capitalist incentives tend to work on people. It's win-win; those who want their guns more than the money can keep their guns.