4 ms·

The history of how gun control came to become such a sharp and reliable wedge issue is well worth understanding. It's a relatively recent thing. Something I've

The history of how gun control came to become such a sharp and reliable wedge issue is well worth understanding. It's a relatively recent thing. Something I've found worth thinking when I hear that, to paraphrase a random sentiment you might hear, "Democrats need to understand that people need to feel secure, that's why gun control matters" is this: who is telling these people that they should be scared?

thomastjeffery 6y ago
One serious look at Feinstein and other's proposed legislation is enough to convince every gun owner I know that Democrats don't know the first thing about guns. We need reform, not absurd threats to ban AR-15's while keeping Mini-14's. Not arbitrary tax stamps and wait times for suppressors and short barrel rifles. I personally haven't seen gun control legislation proposed in America that isn't totally laughable. It's a deep-rooted thorn in the foot of progressive American politics.
- regularfry 6y ago
  And the underlying problem is that gun owners are populous enough that this objection is a serious political blockage. Why do so many Americans own guns? Who is telling them that this is reasonable, desirable, necessary? In most developed countries, gun control is a political footnote. Why is it different in the US?
  - thomastjeffery 6y ago
    > Who is telling them that this is reasonable, desirable, necessary? Is it unreasonable undesirable or unnecessary? I disagree. Guns are tools. Guns are toys. The overwhelming majority of firearm use is safe and recreational. Gun ownership is not correlated with gun violence[1]. The problem with guns isn't that there are a lot of them. The problem is that they are, in very rare cases, used to do serious harm. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
    - regularfry 6y ago
      > Is it unreasonable undesirable or unnecessary? In the context of self-defense... yes? It's just not a very good return on investment. > I disagree. Guns are tools. Guns are toys. > The overwhelming majority of firearm use is safe and recreational. Right, so that's the other half of gun owners, who don't say they have a gun for self-protection, which wasn't the context of this thread. That's fine, though. > Gun ownership is not correlated with gun violence[1]. I mean, it clearly is. You get less gun violence in countries where there are fewer gun owners. That's trivially true. And you'll have to forgive my cynicism, but I can't take wikipedia seriously as a reference on this topic. It's too well-funded a concern for that page not to be pulled in every direction under the sun. > The problem with guns isn't that there are a lot of them. The problem is that they are, in very rare cases, used to do serious harm. The CDC says 39,740 firearm deaths in 2018. Four or five weeks of COVID, at that rate. Whether that counts as "very rare" is subjective, I suppose. That's the cheap bit, though: because the US seems to have a congenital inability to prevent people from going bankrupt over medical bills, you've also got to factor in the same again (to a tolerable approximation) in hospitalisations, according to the NIH. At some point you've got to look at that situation and think "Is the fun of making things go pop worth it?" It's not just the direct harm. In supporting a culture that normalises making things go pop for fun, you get an extensive infrastructure that also benefits people who end up being a serious problem. Yes, that includes school shootings which, yes, are rare, but they're also fairly unique to the US in scale and regularity. Saying "they're rare" doesn't absolve anyone of the need to question why that is, or what can be done to make them less lethal. They make headlines - or used to; they're frequent enough now that they're less news-worthy, which in itself points to a really deep issue - out of proportion to the number of people directly affected because of the combination of the innocence of youth and the extremity of the violence, but now all the schools need to have active-shooter drills because, as a society, the behaviour of the US shows us that it prefers making things go pop to making kids safe.
      - tekknik 6y ago
        Look at gun deaths per 100000 in MX. Guns are very controlled in that country, you can only own a 22LR or a 38 revolver. Gun deaths are still right on par with the US. And of those quoted 39k deaths, 13k of the were homicide, with suicide taking the majority. > At some point you've got to look at that situation and think "Is the fun of making things go pop worth it?" So again, you are taking your opinion and projecting it onto others. You may think removing guns solves gun crimes. Mexico stands blatantly against that. You may think violence stops when guns disappear, then you see knife and other brutal attacks. You are stating you don't need them, so nobody else does. The second you the victim of some violent crime, or lose a family member you'll change your tune, as you see tons of democrats doing now.
tekknik 6y ago
> who is telling these people that they should be scared? Life in general? If you have an idea that this country is safe, then great! But the reality is it’s not, not for many. And to take someone’s method of defense because you can’t see a reason why doesn’t do well for relations. And as the sibling post here said, the left hasn’t tried to understand guns enough to enact gun control that doesn’t sound laughable.
- regularfry 6y ago
  Again, this comes back to an underlying message people are being sold. Two, actually. The first is "It is reasonable to expect to need to defend yourself with lethal force, and a gun is a reasonable tool for doing so." The second is "Feeling the need to defend yourself such that it is a day-to-day concern is a reasonable social position." People will vote on fear before they'll vote on the abject failure of social policy that creates situations where that fear might be justified. That's just how humans are wired: we're not rational. It shouldn't be a matter of taking someone's means of defense, it's trying to address why they feel they need it in the first place. But even then, guns just aren't a particularly good investment if what you want to do is successfully defend yourself from crime. The stats just don't bear it out. So again, who is telling people that they should have one? Who does it suit for large amounts of people to believe that this specific form of mitigation makes sense? Unfortunately, gun control is such a hot-button issue that it's actually outside the Overton window for an entire political faction. If you bring it up at all, even if you're talking about meta-issues like this, the conversation tends to shut down instantly. This is why the response is always "the Dems need to understand" not "the Republicans need to propose." The fear it represents, and the self-image that any conversation around it challenges, are so fundamental that attempting to approach it from any direction is seen as a personal attack. Again, this is not accidental; it is worth understanding when and how this happened, and who was involved in it.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    Well the other side of the second amendment, and one the left shuts down when it's brought up, is protection from government. Then there's the idea of militia's. Both of these are also reasons for people to have the "scary black rifles" in their house, and a central idea to the 2A. So add these to the questions: "Is it reasonable to believe the US may need a militia", "Is it reasonable to force citizen to provide this militia", "Will the US gov ever violate human rights such that the citizens of the US would have to defend themselves against this gov". Then lets also consider that when you talk about self defense, and the possible loss of life, should we be forced to play the "just enough" game with defensive force? Who exactly likes gambling with their life?

thomastjeffery 6y ago

One serious look at Feinstein and other's proposed legislation is enough to convince every gun owner I know that Democrats don't know the first thing about guns. We need reform, not absurd threats to ban AR-15's while keeping Mini-14's. Not arbitrary tax stamps and wait times for suppressors and short barrel rifles. I personally haven't seen gun control legislation proposed in America that isn't totally laughable. It's a deep-rooted thorn in the foot of progressive American politics.

regularfry 6y ago
And the underlying problem is that gun owners are populous enough that this objection is a serious political blockage. Why do so many Americans own guns? Who is telling them that this is reasonable, desirable, necessary? In most developed countries, gun control is a political footnote. Why is it different in the US?
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  > Who is telling them that this is reasonable, desirable, necessary? Is it unreasonable undesirable or unnecessary? I disagree. Guns are tools. Guns are toys. The overwhelming majority of firearm use is safe and recreational. Gun ownership is not correlated with gun violence[1]. The problem with guns isn't that there are a lot of them. The problem is that they are, in very rare cases, used to do serious harm. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
  - regularfry 6y ago
    > Is it unreasonable undesirable or unnecessary? In the context of self-defense... yes? It's just not a very good return on investment. > I disagree. Guns are tools. Guns are toys. > The overwhelming majority of firearm use is safe and recreational. Right, so that's the other half of gun owners, who don't say they have a gun for self-protection, which wasn't the context of this thread. That's fine, though. > Gun ownership is not correlated with gun violence[1]. I mean, it clearly is. You get less gun violence in countries where there are fewer gun owners. That's trivially true. And you'll have to forgive my cynicism, but I can't take wikipedia seriously as a reference on this topic. It's too well-funded a concern for that page not to be pulled in every direction under the sun. > The problem with guns isn't that there are a lot of them. The problem is that they are, in very rare cases, used to do serious harm. The CDC says 39,740 firearm deaths in 2018. Four or five weeks of COVID, at that rate. Whether that counts as "very rare" is subjective, I suppose. That's the cheap bit, though: because the US seems to have a congenital inability to prevent people from going bankrupt over medical bills, you've also got to factor in the same again (to a tolerable approximation) in hospitalisations, according to the NIH. At some point you've got to look at that situation and think "Is the fun of making things go pop worth it?" It's not just the direct harm. In supporting a culture that normalises making things go pop for fun, you get an extensive infrastructure that also benefits people who end up being a serious problem. Yes, that includes school shootings which, yes, are rare, but they're also fairly unique to the US in scale and regularity. Saying "they're rare" doesn't absolve anyone of the need to question why that is, or what can be done to make them less lethal. They make headlines - or used to; they're frequent enough now that they're less news-worthy, which in itself points to a really deep issue - out of proportion to the number of people directly affected because of the combination of the innocence of youth and the extremity of the violence, but now all the schools need to have active-shooter drills because, as a society, the behaviour of the US shows us that it prefers making things go pop to making kids safe.
    - tekknik 6y ago
      Look at gun deaths per 100000 in MX. Guns are very controlled in that country, you can only own a 22LR or a 38 revolver. Gun deaths are still right on par with the US. And of those quoted 39k deaths, 13k of the were homicide, with suicide taking the majority. > At some point you've got to look at that situation and think "Is the fun of making things go pop worth it?" So again, you are taking your opinion and projecting it onto others. You may think removing guns solves gun crimes. Mexico stands blatantly against that. You may think violence stops when guns disappear, then you see knife and other brutal attacks. You are stating you don't need them, so nobody else does. The second you the victim of some violent crime, or lose a family member you'll change your tune, as you see tons of democrats doing now.

tekknik 6y ago

> who is telling these people that they should be scared? Life in general? If you have an idea that this country is safe, then great! But the reality is it’s not, not for many. And to take someone’s method of defense because you can’t see a reason why doesn’t do well for relations. And as the sibling post here said, the left hasn’t tried to understand guns enough to enact gun control that doesn’t sound laughable.

regularfry 6y ago
Again, this comes back to an underlying message people are being sold. Two, actually. The first is "It is reasonable to expect to need to defend yourself with lethal force, and a gun is a reasonable tool for doing so." The second is "Feeling the need to defend yourself such that it is a day-to-day concern is a reasonable social position." People will vote on fear before they'll vote on the abject failure of social policy that creates situations where that fear might be justified. That's just how humans are wired: we're not rational. It shouldn't be a matter of taking someone's means of defense, it's trying to address why they feel they need it in the first place. But even then, guns just aren't a particularly good investment if what you want to do is successfully defend yourself from crime. The stats just don't bear it out. So again, who is telling people that they should have one? Who does it suit for large amounts of people to believe that this specific form of mitigation makes sense? Unfortunately, gun control is such a hot-button issue that it's actually outside the Overton window for an entire political faction. If you bring it up at all, even if you're talking about meta-issues like this, the conversation tends to shut down instantly. This is why the response is always "the Dems need to understand" not "the Republicans need to propose." The fear it represents, and the self-image that any conversation around it challenges, are so fundamental that attempting to approach it from any direction is seen as a personal attack. Again, this is not accidental; it is worth understanding when and how this happened, and who was involved in it.
- tekknik 6y ago
  Well the other side of the second amendment, and one the left shuts down when it's brought up, is protection from government. Then there's the idea of militia's. Both of these are also reasons for people to have the "scary black rifles" in their house, and a central idea to the 2A. So add these to the questions: "Is it reasonable to believe the US may need a militia", "Is it reasonable to force citizen to provide this militia", "Will the US gov ever violate human rights such that the citizens of the US would have to defend themselves against this gov". Then lets also consider that when you talk about self defense, and the possible loss of life, should we be forced to play the "just enough" game with defensive force? Who exactly likes gambling with their life?