3 ms·

The thing about firearms is that, unless you're actively hunting, you don't need them - until you do. You don't need them until there's a home invasion. You do

by cal5k 6y ago

The thing about firearms is that, unless you're actively hunting, you don't need them - until you do. You don't need them until there's a home invasion. You don't need them until someone tries to rob or kidnap you or a member of your family. You don't need them until you are, like in Venezuela or the Czech Republic historically, in opposition to a dictatorial government. There is a real reason that every single authoritarian government in history has disarmed its populace. Vigilance against authoritarianism is the same thing, because authoritarianism rarely happens over night. It takes years, sometimes decades. And if you've built up a network of cameras powered by facial recognition on every street corner, you've now built the apparatus for an authoritarian-leaning government to harness.

mikepurvis 6y ago
> You don't need them until there's a home invasion. I would argue that this also is a uniquely American perspective— for me (an urban Canadian), the thought of starting a firefight with an intruder is horrifying, especially once the possibility of accidentally firing on a child or pet is accounted for. I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the numbers around what "gun in house" means for suicide and domestic disputes (even if I know I'll always be level-headed, what about down the road when my kids are teenagers and have friends over, etc etc). Obviously, part of the guns-make-us-safer story is that criminals don't know which houses have them and which don't, and as a passive effect that's difficult to really study. But for a lot of us on the outside of this mentality, it's hard to escape the feeling that the safety provided by a gun is kind of like the safety provided by driving an SUV— mostly illusory, and comes at significant costs both to self and others. > And if you've built up a network of cameras powered by facial recognition on every street corner, you've now built the apparatus for an authoritarian-leaning government to harness. I would argue that this is a distraction— that level of surveillance already exists, but it's away from public scrutiny and is managed by Facebook and Google. The clear and current authoritarianism threat in the US is the 106 house Republicans who supported Trump's absurd Texas lawsuit, that the leaders of one of the two major parties are unwilling to clearly speak with one voice to shut this nonsense down. And I'd be happy to be mistaken on this, but my impression is that gun owner clubs are mostly on Trump's side— those who are talking about taking to streets wouldn't be doing so to ensure a peaceful transition of power, they'd be doing so because they believe conspiracy theories about a stolen election.
- cal5k 6y ago
  I'm a rural Canadian, and the idea of not having firearms in the house horrifies me. As does the constant push by urban Canadians to disarm rural folks (like me) who legally own firearms. It's ultimately your choice, but I've watched a lot of video on documented home invasions, and a few things are clear: a) Anyone willing to invade your home while armed will have no compunction about seriously injuring or killing any of the occupants; b) The defensive use of a firearm, while largely not reported, is an amazing deterrent in probable 95% of attempted home invasions where the homeowner has a firearm. Most intruders will nope out as soon as they see a gun, no shots necessary. c) It happens in Canada far more often than you think, including in cities. Here's a recent case: https://torontosun.com/news/crime/violent-home-invasion-may-be-connected-to-shooting-in-may-police https://torontosun.com/news/crime/violent-home-invasion-may-.... Even if this case is gang-related, what are the odds that these people make mistakes and enter the wrong home/apartmnet? d) In rural areas, police are not getting there in any reasonable timeframe. It would take police probably 30 minutes to get to my house. Ultimately, my view is that the right to self-defence is meaningless unless you have the means with which to actually defend yourself. I have no problem with people who are uncomfortable owning firearms and choose not to, but it's very problematic when those people force their views on others. It's not legal in Canada to own firearms strictly for the purpose of self-defence (because our gun laws are quite silly once you become familiar with them), but most rural folks hunt or sport shoot so it's a moot point. Oh, and by the way - meta-studies on the topic indicate that restricting access to firearms doesn't actually prevent suicides, it just causes people to shift methods to hanging, overdose, etc.
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    Yeah, I should have clarified: I’m not necessarily for disarming; I think the Canadian laws are fine the way they are, and people who want them and are reasonably fit/trained are welcome to have guns. I just never will and am glad my kids don’t visit friends’ houses where guns are a thing. But my point is that the Canadian laws are basically the reforms that are being asked for in the US and are described by opponents as totalitarian. Regarding suicide, do you have a source for this claim? Everything I’ve read on this says quite the opposite, for example: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-suicide/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-...

by cal5k 6y ago

mikepurvis 6y ago

> You don't need them until there's a home invasion. I would argue that this also is a uniquely American perspective— for me (an urban Canadian), the thought of starting a firefight with an intruder is horrifying, especially once the possibility of accidentally firing on a child or pet is accounted for. I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the numbers around what "gun in house" means for suicide and domestic disputes (even if I know I'll always be level-headed, what about down the road when my kids are teenagers and have friends over, etc etc). Obviously, part of the guns-make-us-safer story is that criminals don't know which houses have them and which don't, and as a passive effect that's difficult to really study. But for a lot of us on the outside of this mentality, it's hard to escape the feeling that the safety provided by a gun is kind of like the safety provided by driving an SUV— mostly illusory, and comes at significant costs both to self and others. > And if you've built up a network of cameras powered by facial recognition on every street corner, you've now built the apparatus for an authoritarian-leaning government to harness. I would argue that this is a distraction— that level of surveillance already exists, but it's away from public scrutiny and is managed by Facebook and Google. The clear and current authoritarianism threat in the US is the 106 house Republicans who supported Trump's absurd Texas lawsuit, that the leaders of one of the two major parties are unwilling to clearly speak with one voice to shut this nonsense down. And I'd be happy to be mistaken on this, but my impression is that gun owner clubs are mostly on Trump's side— those who are talking about taking to streets wouldn't be doing so to ensure a peaceful transition of power, they'd be doing so because they believe conspiracy theories about a stolen election.

cal5k 6y ago
I'm a rural Canadian, and the idea of not having firearms in the house horrifies me. As does the constant push by urban Canadians to disarm rural folks (like me) who legally own firearms. It's ultimately your choice, but I've watched a lot of video on documented home invasions, and a few things are clear: a) Anyone willing to invade your home while armed will have no compunction about seriously injuring or killing any of the occupants; b) The defensive use of a firearm, while largely not reported, is an amazing deterrent in probable 95% of attempted home invasions where the homeowner has a firearm. Most intruders will nope out as soon as they see a gun, no shots necessary. c) It happens in Canada far more often than you think, including in cities. Here's a recent case: https://torontosun.com/news/crime/violent-home-invasion-may-be-connected-to-shooting-in-may-police https://torontosun.com/news/crime/violent-home-invasion-may-.... Even if this case is gang-related, what are the odds that these people make mistakes and enter the wrong home/apartmnet? d) In rural areas, police are not getting there in any reasonable timeframe. It would take police probably 30 minutes to get to my house. Ultimately, my view is that the right to self-defence is meaningless unless you have the means with which to actually defend yourself. I have no problem with people who are uncomfortable owning firearms and choose not to, but it's very problematic when those people force their views on others. It's not legal in Canada to own firearms strictly for the purpose of self-defence (because our gun laws are quite silly once you become familiar with them), but most rural folks hunt or sport shoot so it's a moot point. Oh, and by the way - meta-studies on the topic indicate that restricting access to firearms doesn't actually prevent suicides, it just causes people to shift methods to hanging, overdose, etc.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  Yeah, I should have clarified: I’m not necessarily for disarming; I think the Canadian laws are fine the way they are, and people who want them and are reasonably fit/trained are welcome to have guns. I just never will and am glad my kids don’t visit friends’ houses where guns are a thing. But my point is that the Canadian laws are basically the reforms that are being asked for in the US and are described by opponents as totalitarian. Regarding suicide, do you have a source for this claim? Everything I’ve read on this says quite the opposite, for example: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-suicide/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-...