4 ms·

I mean, why do you think they've been trying to progressively restrict guns for years?

Lev1a 6y ago
Firearms make it easy/way easier to kill/seriously injure * a large number of people * from a distance * with basically no effort With knives on the other hand it's hard (especially for untrained attackers) killing/injuring * even a low number of people (IF even more than one) * from arm's reach * with large physical effort. Following that firearm restriction to those who may actually need them (law enforcement etc.) is then quite obvious.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  That doesn't matter. How many people does something have to be able to kill before being banned? The truck attack in France was deadlier than any mass shooting in America. There are costs to freedom, including the potential for abuse. Just like predictive policing is wrong because it goes after those who haven't committed crimes, banning guns is wrong. The death of a ten, a hundred, a thousand, or more people doesn't justify restricting liberty. All guns ought to be legal.
  - corobo 6y ago
    Ok but how about if you combine all truck attacks vs all shootouts Not like Americans can do anything with the guns. You gonna stop what's happening right now with your pistol? Go on then. Literally the time to shine that liberty. You've got a guy threatening to be Hitler 2.0 (hi Godwin!) and making moves towards that.. nothing Oh they'd just make it worse? Maybe you shouldn't have them so easily accessible then https://www.theonion.com/search?q=%E2%80%98No%20Way%20To%20Prevent%20This,%E2%80%99%20Says%20Only%20Nation%20Where%20This%20Regularly%20Happens https://www.theonion.com/search?q=%E2%80%98No%20Way%20To%20P...
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      I'd argue a fairer metric would probably be to compare gun deaths to car deaths; nearly twice as many people died to cars in 2019 [0] [1]. I definitely don't think Trump will be "Hitler 2.0". He probably won't even be in office after this election. Again, however, my primary argument is normative and values-based. I'm not arguing that we only have gun rights because they don't kill x number of people. Even if a hundred thousand people were killed by mass shootings I wouldn't support gun restrictions. We don't restrict people's liberties because others break the law. The thing most gun grabbers miss and that most gun rights proponents won't say is that our primary value is liberty not saving more lives. [0]: https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-deaths-2019-increase/ https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-deaths-2019-increase/ [1]: https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estimates https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estim...
      - umvi 6y ago
        Well you're in a dying breed it seems. These days liberty is not worth more than death. In other words, it's increasingly popular to trade some liberty in exchange for saving lives. Take away people's gun liberty, take away people's liberty to refuse wearing a mask, take away people's liberty to say hateful/hurtful things to the vulnerable on social media and you can save thousands, even tens of thousands of lives per year. The problem with liberty is that some % of people (bad actors) abuse it to cause harm to others
        salawat 6y ago
        Dying breed? Golly I sure hope not. There's at least two of we liberty guards left at least. The entire country was architected around the premise of liberty being more important than the State's capacity to deliver perfect security.
        mmm_grayons 6y ago
        I certainly hope I'm not a dying breed, though the last few months have sadly made it appear that you may be right. I don't see why a sufficiently large number of people believing otherwise is a good argument against my position, though. While I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary, my general worldview is simply that life is not the paramount value to be sought, but rather liberty instead.
  - hannofcart 6y ago
    The premise of your argument seems to be that the number of victims that a weapon can be unleashed on should not be a criterion for banning it. Am I getting that right? If so, can I please be allowed to have my own private nuclear warhead? I promise to only use it as a deterrent against a similarly armed government getting too "oppressive". I promise not to set it off in a bout of drunken depression.
    - salawat 6y ago
      Technically, in the United States, you can. Just get all your tax stamps, and make sure the DoE knows about your nuclear material. Good luck finding FOGBANK. Also good luck filling out all the paperwork. There's a difference between outright banning something and placing an astonishing number of administrative hurdles in the way. Private nuclear weapons come with so much paperwork as to be esssentially impracticable, but never the less possible. At least that was the verdict last time I looked into the question.
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      Ahh, I love the McNuke argument. It's like "what about the roads" but for firearms policy. I've actually thought pretty hard about it, but no, I don't think so, and I believe my reason is consistent with the ideology I expressed above. The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage. Fallout, radiation poisoning, etc. So the government can in fact act to keep these externalities from harming others.
      - hannofcart 6y ago
        > The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage. Sure, how about a howitzer then? What you're failing to see or refusing to admit is that you too want to restrict access to weapons based on a certain threshold of collateral damage/body count each of them can inflict. It's just that for some (perhaps most) of us, an AR-15 is way past our threshold. As for the truck you mentioned that was used in France: if it's ever found that a certain truck model makes it particularly easy to run over people with, I bet my bottom dollar that soon after there will be legislation enacted restricting access to it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- centimeter 6y ago
  Fewer than 200 people die every year in the US (~1 in 1,500,000) from rifle homicides, fewer than the number of people who die from kicks and punches or blunt objects, and yet rifle platforms such as the AR-15 are one of the most popular targets of anti-gun lawmakers and are heavily regulated in many states. Saving lives is not a rational explanation for the political strategy of anti-gun activists. If it were, I would be more willing to consider what they had to say. Based on what they do rather than what they say, I can only conclude that their motivations have nothing to do with rationally increasing safety, and are more related to mindless irrational fear, disarming people for political reasons, and simply pandering to people who have also done no real research.
  - deathhand 6y ago
    The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many". The retort is then usually the Benjamin Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Finally it ends with 'do you trust current authority?' and depending upon the social circle you will get various answers.
    - syshum 6y ago
      The entire foundation of the US system of government is built on distrust of all forms or authority. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." The US was setup to protect individuals from both government and the majority. Sadly through out history we have lost respect for this separation of powers resulting is elimination of many checks and balances that where builtin to the system Short answer... No I do not trust any government, or authority. Nobody should
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many". Cough cars, police officers, food that doesn't taste like grass and cardboard, cough, cough.

Firearms make it easy/way easier to kill/seriously injure * a large number of people * from a distance * with basically no effort With knives on the other hand it's hard (especially for untrained attackers) killing/injuring * even a low number of people (IF even more than one) * from arm's reach * with large physical effort. Following that firearm restriction to those who may actually need them (law enforcement etc.) is then quite obvious.

mmm_grayons 6y ago
That doesn't matter. How many people does something have to be able to kill before being banned? The truck attack in France was deadlier than any mass shooting in America. There are costs to freedom, including the potential for abuse. Just like predictive policing is wrong because it goes after those who haven't committed crimes, banning guns is wrong. The death of a ten, a hundred, a thousand, or more people doesn't justify restricting liberty. All guns ought to be legal.
- corobo 6y ago
  Ok but how about if you combine all truck attacks vs all shootouts Not like Americans can do anything with the guns. You gonna stop what's happening right now with your pistol? Go on then. Literally the time to shine that liberty. You've got a guy threatening to be Hitler 2.0 (hi Godwin!) and making moves towards that.. nothing Oh they'd just make it worse? Maybe you shouldn't have them so easily accessible then https://www.theonion.com/search?q=%E2%80%98No%20Way%20To%20Prevent%20This,%E2%80%99%20Says%20Only%20Nation%20Where%20This%20Regularly%20Happens https://www.theonion.com/search?q=%E2%80%98No%20Way%20To%20P...
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    I'd argue a fairer metric would probably be to compare gun deaths to car deaths; nearly twice as many people died to cars in 2019 [0] [1]. I definitely don't think Trump will be "Hitler 2.0". He probably won't even be in office after this election. Again, however, my primary argument is normative and values-based. I'm not arguing that we only have gun rights because they don't kill x number of people. Even if a hundred thousand people were killed by mass shootings I wouldn't support gun restrictions. We don't restrict people's liberties because others break the law. The thing most gun grabbers miss and that most gun rights proponents won't say is that our primary value is liberty not saving more lives. [0]: https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-deaths-2019-increase/ https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-deaths-2019-increase/ [1]: https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estimates https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estim...
    - umvi 6y ago
      Well you're in a dying breed it seems. These days liberty is not worth more than death. In other words, it's increasingly popular to trade some liberty in exchange for saving lives. Take away people's gun liberty, take away people's liberty to refuse wearing a mask, take away people's liberty to say hateful/hurtful things to the vulnerable on social media and you can save thousands, even tens of thousands of lives per year. The problem with liberty is that some % of people (bad actors) abuse it to cause harm to others
      - salawat 6y ago
        Dying breed? Golly I sure hope not. There's at least two of we liberty guards left at least. The entire country was architected around the premise of liberty being more important than the State's capacity to deliver perfect security.
      - mmm_grayons 6y ago
        I certainly hope I'm not a dying breed, though the last few months have sadly made it appear that you may be right. I don't see why a sufficiently large number of people believing otherwise is a good argument against my position, though. While I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary, my general worldview is simply that life is not the paramount value to be sought, but rather liberty instead.
- hannofcart 6y ago
  The premise of your argument seems to be that the number of victims that a weapon can be unleashed on should not be a criterion for banning it. Am I getting that right? If so, can I please be allowed to have my own private nuclear warhead? I promise to only use it as a deterrent against a similarly armed government getting too "oppressive". I promise not to set it off in a bout of drunken depression.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Technically, in the United States, you can. Just get all your tax stamps, and make sure the DoE knows about your nuclear material. Good luck finding FOGBANK. Also good luck filling out all the paperwork. There's a difference between outright banning something and placing an astonishing number of administrative hurdles in the way. Private nuclear weapons come with so much paperwork as to be esssentially impracticable, but never the less possible. At least that was the verdict last time I looked into the question.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    Ahh, I love the McNuke argument. It's like "what about the roads" but for firearms policy. I've actually thought pretty hard about it, but no, I don't think so, and I believe my reason is consistent with the ideology I expressed above. The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage. Fallout, radiation poisoning, etc. So the government can in fact act to keep these externalities from harming others.
    - hannofcart 6y ago
      > The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage. Sure, how about a howitzer then? What you're failing to see or refusing to admit is that you too want to restrict access to weapons based on a certain threshold of collateral damage/body count each of them can inflict. It's just that for some (perhaps most) of us, an AR-15 is way past our threshold. As for the truck you mentioned that was used in France: if it's ever found that a certain truck model makes it particularly easy to run over people with, I bet my bottom dollar that soon after there will be legislation enacted restricting access to it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
centimeter 6y ago
Fewer than 200 people die every year in the US (~1 in 1,500,000) from rifle homicides, fewer than the number of people who die from kicks and punches or blunt objects, and yet rifle platforms such as the AR-15 are one of the most popular targets of anti-gun lawmakers and are heavily regulated in many states. Saving lives is not a rational explanation for the political strategy of anti-gun activists. If it were, I would be more willing to consider what they had to say. Based on what they do rather than what they say, I can only conclude that their motivations have nothing to do with rationally increasing safety, and are more related to mindless irrational fear, disarming people for political reasons, and simply pandering to people who have also done no real research.
- deathhand 6y ago
  The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many". The retort is then usually the Benjamin Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Finally it ends with 'do you trust current authority?' and depending upon the social circle you will get various answers.
  - syshum 6y ago
    The entire foundation of the US system of government is built on distrust of all forms or authority. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." The US was setup to protect individuals from both government and the majority. Sadly through out history we have lost respect for this separation of powers resulting is elimination of many checks and balances that where builtin to the system Short answer... No I do not trust any government, or authority. Nobody should
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many". Cough cars, police officers, food that doesn't taste like grass and cardboard, cough, cough.