5 ms·

Sounds like severely limiting access to guns in the US would be great place to start then.

kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
Shh. Don't say that. The crazies will come out and tell you about if we do that we'll end up a totalitarian wasteland like Sweden or New Zealand or something like that.
- rabuse 6y ago
  It's not crazy to understand that limiting firearm access to law abiding citizens will provide an upper hand to criminals who couldn't care less about breaking laws, with the number of firearms currently in the U.S.
  - mitchdoogle 6y ago
    This is the kind of thing that gun advocates like to tout as "a priori" knowledge. However, "criminals" respond to incentives just as all people do. You need to make the incentive to not own a gun stronger than the incentive to own a gun. Weak gun laws currently make it very easy to obtain a gun without any permits or background checks. There's also a false dichotomy between law-abiding citizens and criminals. Anyone who has always been law-abiding can commit a crime, and if they own a gun, there's a much higher chance that someone is killed as part of that crime. There's a much higher chance they kill someone accidentally, and that someone is often a member of their own family. And a higher chance that they will successfully commit suicide. These are all facts when comparing gun owners to non-owners.
    - agensaequivocum 6y ago
      The government should disincentivize persons from owning guns no more than it should disincentivize persons from voting, from associating, or from speaking, etc.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
NateEag 6y ago
Regardless of whether it's a good idea, it cannot be done. I believe the last number I saw said there were about 300 million guns in the US - one for each person. There's no way to just make those disappear into government hands.
- splintercell 6y ago
  300 million stat is old, I think now it's somewhere around 393 million. Coronavirus and the riots have also created far more new gun owners among a lot of people (making an observation from my friends and other people I know).
- grey-area 6y ago
  Of course there is. There are legitimate reasons for owning a rifle in rural America (hunting), there are no legitimate reasons for owning an assault weapon, and guns can easily be made gradually less attractive. If you don't accept this even as a possibility you are part of the problem.
  - joenot443 6y ago
    What do you think that way (of the government collecting 300m firearms) might be?
    - grey-area 6y ago
      The same way every other country has gone about this. This has been done after wars for example (after WWII), and after many different conflicts in different countries in Africa. It would take a long time and would require tightening laws gradually and at the same time encouraging people to hand in their weapons. This is not particularly difficult logistically, the only difficulty is in the American psyche apparently, which seems completely incompatible with this simple common-sense measure. The outcome would be fewer deaths by cop, fewer deaths in burglaries, and fewer mass shootings. There is abundant evidence from around the globe that limiting the ownership of guns helps limit deaths.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 6y ago
Actual looting has been occurring in New York [0] as we discover that the police either lack the willpower or resources to actually protect American businesses. And who knows what is happening for ordinary law-and-order problems. If someone manages to carry a "disarm and leave it to the police" argument with that evidence in recent memory it will go down in the history books as one of the great political accomplishments of the 21st century. Anyone who ever argued in favour guns in self defence was talking at least in part about moments in history like these. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/nyregion/nyc-looting-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/nyregion/nyc-looting-prot...

Shh. Don't say that. The crazies will come out and tell you about if we do that we'll end up a totalitarian wasteland like Sweden or New Zealand or something like that.

rabuse 6y ago
It's not crazy to understand that limiting firearm access to law abiding citizens will provide an upper hand to criminals who couldn't care less about breaking laws, with the number of firearms currently in the U.S.
- mitchdoogle 6y ago
  This is the kind of thing that gun advocates like to tout as "a priori" knowledge. However, "criminals" respond to incentives just as all people do. You need to make the incentive to not own a gun stronger than the incentive to own a gun. Weak gun laws currently make it very easy to obtain a gun without any permits or background checks. There's also a false dichotomy between law-abiding citizens and criminals. Anyone who has always been law-abiding can commit a crime, and if they own a gun, there's a much higher chance that someone is killed as part of that crime. There's a much higher chance they kill someone accidentally, and that someone is often a member of their own family. And a higher chance that they will successfully commit suicide. These are all facts when comparing gun owners to non-owners.
  - agensaequivocum 6y ago
    The government should disincentivize persons from owning guns no more than it should disincentivize persons from voting, from associating, or from speaking, etc.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

NateEag 6y ago

Regardless of whether it's a good idea, it cannot be done. I believe the last number I saw said there were about 300 million guns in the US - one for each person. There's no way to just make those disappear into government hands.

splintercell 6y ago
300 million stat is old, I think now it's somewhere around 393 million. Coronavirus and the riots have also created far more new gun owners among a lot of people (making an observation from my friends and other people I know).
grey-area 6y ago
Of course there is. There are legitimate reasons for owning a rifle in rural America (hunting), there are no legitimate reasons for owning an assault weapon, and guns can easily be made gradually less attractive. If you don't accept this even as a possibility you are part of the problem.
- joenot443 6y ago
  What do you think that way (of the government collecting 300m firearms) might be?
  - grey-area 6y ago
    The same way every other country has gone about this. This has been done after wars for example (after WWII), and after many different conflicts in different countries in Africa. It would take a long time and would require tightening laws gradually and at the same time encouraging people to hand in their weapons. This is not particularly difficult logistically, the only difficulty is in the American psyche apparently, which seems completely incompatible with this simple common-sense measure. The outcome would be fewer deaths by cop, fewer deaths in burglaries, and fewer mass shootings. There is abundant evidence from around the globe that limiting the ownership of guns helps limit deaths.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

roenxi 6y ago

Actual looting has been occurring in New York [0] as we discover that the police either lack the willpower or resources to actually protect American businesses. And who knows what is happening for ordinary law-and-order problems. If someone manages to carry a "disarm and leave it to the police" argument with that evidence in recent memory it will go down in the history books as one of the great political accomplishments of the 21st century. Anyone who ever argued in favour guns in self defence was talking at least in part about moments in history like these. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/nyregion/nyc-looting-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/nyregion/nyc-looting-prot...