23 ms·
Gun sales rise in past year, especially among women and African Americans
- corban1 6y agoGuns are most needed in African American neighborhoods. Banning them will criminalize more African Americans who need guns for their protection. If you can't provide quality public safety services, at least keep self defense legal.
- AlexanderDhoore 6y agoOnly because all criminals have guns. Because guess what. Guns are legal.
- corban1 6y agoAnd you think criminals have guns because they are legal?
- altcognito 6y agoBy in large in countries with well functioning governments, guns are kept off the streets.
- TrispusAttucks 6y agoOkay. Tell that to Myanmar's unarmed citizens. The government there has reduced the civilian owned guns by over half in the preceding decade. [1] Is Myanmar and example of well functioning? [1] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar
- altcognito 6y agoI'm not sure what you think I was saying. All I said was that it is possible to enforce gun laws if the government is well-functioning, which was probably an overstatement. All I'm trying to say is that if the government is serious about gun control and has control of it's law enforcement (which was a proxy for 'well-functioning', outlaws will not have them) There are a number of countries that have laws on the books, but does a terrible job of enforcing those rules. All of this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the laws should exist or not. For my needs, Myanmar isn't a country worth discussing in terms of gun control because it's not like the citizenry has a voice in drafting policy and owning small arms has been a way of life there for decades, and does it seem to have resolved their issues with "representation"?
- notahacker 6y agoYour stat shows that (i) Myanmar's citizens were not unarmed and (ii) privately owned firearms were more widespread in 2007 when the country had been under the control of an autocratic military junta for decades than in 2017 when it appeared to be transitioning to semi-democracy. Myanmar is certainly not well functioning, but it is also certainly not an example of effective gun controls, or an example of widespread private firearm ownership preventing autocratic regimes from doing what they like.
- syops 6y agoIn countries where gun ownership is hard to obtain legally criminals have much lower rates of gun ownership. Banning legal gun ownership does not prevent all criminals from accessing guns but it does prevent most of them from accessing guns. Importantly it prevents for the most part gun involvement in crimes of passion.
- est31 6y agoEven if the USA banned gun ownership, which would require a constitutional amendment and given views on the issue by majorities of the populations of some states, would thus be quite impossible, even then there would be the practical issue of enforcing that ban. Immediately after the ban, there would still be gazillions of guns floating around the US. It would take multiple decades after the ban until the positive effects can be felt. During this time, the criminals would absolutely still have guns while the law abiding citizens would not. Furthermore, there are huge smuggling activities at the US's southern border, making it possible for guns to enter on that route. Maybe if a strong border wall is built, it can be pulled off somehow. Also don't forget that there are wild animals in many parts of the US, like say in Alaska. Sometimes you need to have a gun.
- syops 6y agoThis is a different argument than the one I responded to. I gather then that you agree with me that the point I responded to is invalid.
- est31 6y agoMy point was that it takes decades until the point you responded to becomes invalid. Even if Biden banned all guns tomorrow, it's likely that criminals will keep having guns during the life span of everybody alive today.
- Ancapistani 6y agoFurther, if guns were banned tomorrow, there are a significant number of people who would instantly become criminals. It feels like many who advocate banning guns severely underestimate the importance of the issue to the other side.
- cpursley 6y agoSince when have criminals been able to legally purchase firearms?
- judge2020 6y agoThe ones never caught don’t have issues with background checks.
- iamben 6y agoIt's a lot easier to get something illegally when it's legally available and ubiquitous.
- OminousWeapons 6y agoWhat happens is you get people without records making straw purchases from legal sellers. These people turn around and sell them to criminals.
- _-david-_ 6y agoLegal sellers have to do background checks.
- OminousWeapons 6y agoCorrect, the initial transaction is from a legal dealer or private seller to a legal buyer who will pass a background check. The legal buyer then turns around and illegally sells it to someone who cannot legally own a firearm. This is called a straw purchase.
- r3trohack3r 6y agoCounterpoint: prohibition on marijuana, cocaine, opium, etc. Yet they’re prolific.
- syops 6y agoIt’s easy to grow marijuana, for instance. I can do it. I can not manufacture a gun easily. In countries where legal gun ownership is hard to obtain they have much lower rates of crimes involving guns while at the same time having ready access to illegal drugs. Your counterpoint is not apt.
- carmen_sandiego 6y agoIt's as easy to smuggle guns into the US as it is to smuggle in drugs that aren't grown there. It's also pretty easy to manufacture them. I suspect the latter is just your perception from never having tried.
- syops 6y agoI don’t know much about gun smuggling. Do you have sources or experience in this area to know that gun smuggling is as easy as drug smuggling? My impression, not based on experience, is that gun smuggling can’t occur at near the level that drug smuggling does. For one it’s far easier to track the manufacturing of guns as the location of factories is well known and public knowledge. Is it your contention that any old fool like myself can produce useful guns (ones that don’t explode when I shoot it) and ammunition? Does this ability scale the same way that growing marijuana does?
- carmen_sandiego 6y agoYou might know where the factories are, but what does that matter if manufacturing guns isn't illegal in those places? At present, guns are smuggled _out_ of the US quite effectively [1] As for whether it's easy to produce a working gun: well, generally you can purchase the component parts of a gun on some continuum between raw materials and final product. The exact point on the continuum that you make your purchase depending on your risk level and how restrictive gun component laws are where you live. After that it's a case of following schematics and a little machining skill. However, it seems unlikely that individual criminals would manufacture their own guns, in the same way that drug users don't typically manufacture their own drugs. It would require investment into machinery and minor expertise, but the barrier to entry is low enough that suppliers shouldn't have much problem stepping in to meet demand. I would assume that the US has the highest prevalence of gunsmithing expertise of almost any nation at this point. Those skills won't vanish overnight. If you're really interested in making a home made gun, without involving a supplier, there are already ways to do that [2]. It seems unlikely a ban on 3D printing or other machinery and raw materials would work out. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed
- whoooooo123 6y agoYou've obviously never spent time in Brazil, where all criminals have guns, but guns are illegal.
- cbmuser 6y agoBrazil is bad example, they have much more serious social problems. Compare with any European country and you will see that gun control works. Of course, there will always be criminals who will acquire illegal guns, but overall it’s much harder to get a gun. If your standard is 100% efficiency, you could make everything legal including murder, because making murder illegal doesn’t avoid it by 100%.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoI always find it odd how Europe is used as an example of gun control success. Especially when it comes to the issue of oppressive governments. World War 2 happened less than a century ago. During Weimar and the 1930s, pretty strict gun laws were put in place.
- pintxo 6y agoThis might be because we are still waiting for a conclusive argument how wide-spread gun ownership would have prevented WW2. Hint: Hitler was legally voted into power. It's not that the Nazis had guns and the rest of the country was in fear to oppose them.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoThat's a counterfactual argument. It is by definition unprovable. I said that Europe shouldn't be considered a gun control success, not that if there were guns, WW2 would have been prevented. During the Weimar era and the Nazi era, gun control laws were put into place. That is a historical fact. Also, hint: saying that Hitler was voted into power as if it were an average democratic vote deeply misunderstands the situation. I suggest reading more about the era, specifically Ian Kershaw's book.
- rubyist5eva 6y agoI live in Canada, we have very strict laws about who can get and how to get guns. 80% of gun crime is committed by people that don’t have a license, and got them from unauthorized places. Making something illegal doesn’t make it go away, just creates a black market. Criminals also don’t give a hoot about laws, by definition.
- syops 6y agoThe relevant statistic is not the one you mentioned. One expects the outcome you cited. What is the frequency of gun involvement in crime in Canada vs. the United States? That’s the relevant comparison.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cbmuser 6y agoMake murder legal then because the law to make it illegal doesn’t keep it from happen 100% of the cases.
- goatinaboat 6y agoOnly because all criminals have guns. Because guess what. Guns are legal. There were many stories during the "firey but mostly peaceful" demonstrations last year of people who were ordinarily liberals trying to buy guns for personal and home defence and discovering to their horror that that actually there is a background check and a waiting period, you can't just buy one on a whim. Nor can a friend legally just lend you one.
- wongarsu 6y agoThe solution should be better police (probably a major police reform), not more guns. You don't solve public safety by arming everyone.
- milkshakes 6y agoyes and the solution to homelessness is to build more homes. somehow we have neither and the horizon is bleak
- wongarsu 6y agoThe solution to homelessness is free mental health services, better safety nets (easy to get, unconditional unemployment benefits) and a public health system that doesn't bankrupt people. In the bay area "there are no homes" is a real problem, but the systematic reasons for homelessness are even more important to solve.
- LorenPechtel 6y agoHomelessness is generally not caused by a lack of homes. Providing homes works well for those who are homeless for economic reasons. It works very poorly for those who are homeless for reasons of drugs/alcohol or mental illness.
- 8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y agoIt's worse for them than not having housing at all? I find that hard to believe.
- imtringued 6y agoIf you give the homeless homes they aren't homeless anymore, they are merely drug addicts at that point.
- LorenPechtel 6y agoExcept they're likely to sell anything detachable to get money for their addiction and they're likely to wreck the place anyway.
- throw0101a 6y agoReducing poverty would also reduce crime, and have other positive effects. A better welfare state, especially with regards to infant/child care and early childhood education, is probably a better ROI.
- boredumb 6y agoAn armed society is a polite society.
- INTPenis 6y agoReally? Because I have a guy screaming burnt into my retinas for watching that horrible video from New Jersey where a couple taunt a man who snaps, gets his guns and shoots them both. I made the mistake of watching it about a month ago, when it leaked, and I can't get the husbands screams out of my head. If that's a polite society then I'll take an impolite society without guns over that any day.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago> a couple taunt a man who snaps, gets his guns and shoots them both. I missed this one, what happened?
- BaseS4 6y agoArguably, everyone in that neighborhood will err on the side of politeness for the foreseeable futute.
- analyte123 6y agoThe subtext of “armed society is a polite society” is that you don’t taunt or start petty arguments in the first place, in case the guy turns out to be like the one in the video.
- INTPenis 6y agoBut that's exactly what happened. In a state where you can legally own automatic rifles these people relentlessly taunted a man until he got his pistol and his rifle and shot them both. And someone else said "well now everyone in that neighborhood know better", sure, and it only took three lives and orphaned children to make it happen. Congrats.
- Daho0n 6y agoThen it is provable wrong. I can't believe anyone who has watched news from the US could believe in such foolishness. If anything it is just the opposite. Just goggle that video.
- CincinnatiMan 6y agoThe article is extremely short on data related to the headline, and in fact it's just a tiny blurb in the introductory paragraph. Would love to read more about these stats. On an unrelated note, the person being interviewed really expresses a binary world view of left vs right with no in between, which is discouraging.
- TrispusAttucks 6y agoRight! The hypocrisy is totally lost on the interviewee.
- sndean 6y agoI think the article and this Brookings article (which has some graphs) [0] are talking about the same data. It's based on the number of background checks by NICS [1]. Out of the top ten highest weeks for background checks, nine were in 2020/2021, the other was in 2012 [2]. A month after Obama was reelected? Not sure what else was going on in December 2012. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/07/13/three-million-more-guns-the-spring-2020-spike-in-firearm-sales/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/07/13/three-mil... [1] https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics [2] https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_top_10_highest_days_weeks.pdf/view https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_top_...
- seibelj 6y agoThe number one reason I support the right to own firearms is protection against the state. If it was as easy to own and buy guns in Hong Kong as it is in the USA the current situation with the destruction of democracy and the imposition of authoritarian rule would have been a much fairer fight. Beyond that, my extended family is almost entirely based in the Deep South of the US, one of my cousins is a professional firearm dealer, and another works for one of the largest sellers of hunting apparel. One of my best friends owns about 50 guns. The number of irresponsible uses of guns in my family and friends group are zero. Guns are a tool like anything else - if it’s legal to own a chainsaw, a hunting knife, or a sledgehammer then it is not ridiculous to have licensed responsible adults to own guns. I applaud the sale of firearms and the continuing spread of the culture to all people, races, and genders. The more people learn responsible use of guns and own them, the safer they will be, the safer society will be, and the less likely some idiot group of politicians will ban them.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- adflux 6y agoI agree entirely, even though I am not from the US. The US has a mental health and poverty problem, NOT a gun problem. Plenty of examples of wealthy countries with lots of guns (Sweden, Switzerland) and little to no gun violence.
- muglug 6y agoThose countries have massively more stringent rules around gun ownership, and much lower gun ownership rates. Not at all comparable.
- GcVmvNhBsU 6y agoNot to mention conscription, which probably helps with both discipline and meeting people not like you.
- muglug 6y ago
- williesleg 6y agoYeah I got mine so let's pass a law so you can't get yours.
- altcognito 6y agoI can't disagree with the personal decision to carry a weapon, but systemically it speaks ill of your country if you feel mortally threatened everywhere you walk. Having a fundamental distrust of your fellow man is a tough way to go through life.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoYou don't need to feel threatened to carry a gun.
- Daho0n 6y agoWhy do you carry it then? To hammer nails if you see a nail in need of hammering? There're only three kinds of civilians who carry: those that carry out of fear, those that carry to spread fear and those that think it makes them cool.
- meowster 6y agoThere are more than three kinds, everyone's motivation is different, and claiming to know what someone else is thinking based on what you perceive, is not accurate. I can think of at least another kind: someone who likes to be prepared, who doesn't think they'll ever need it, and hopes to never use it. - me Do you pay for insurance that you aren't legally-required to have? A gun is not the same, but there are parallels.
- africanboy 6y ago> someone who likes to be prepared, who doesn't think they'll ever need it, and hopes to never use it If 40% of the population think they need to be prepared, there is probably something broken in that community.
- andrewflnr 6y agoEven if you're right (I'd at least mostly agree), pointing that out doesn't change the facts for the people who think they need to be prepared. Don't blame them. Fix the situation before you expect them to relax.
- cassepipe 6y agoWell when tensions rise, it's always the weapons dealers that benefit from it. No wonder the NRA is hand to hand with GOP.
- fasteddie31003 6y agoMy girlfriend wanted me to get one right in the beginning of the pandemic. Probably will never need to use it. The only scenario I see it being useful is if society completely falls apart and people start getting desperate.
- brk 6y agoOne of my neighbors contacted me early on in the pandemic about buying a gun as well. I told him, if things get to that level, just bring your family to my house because you're not going to go from never-owned-a-gun to sufficient-at-self-defense fast enough anyway.
- whoooooo123 6y agoTangential, but I highly recommend the YouTube channel Active Self Protection for all kinds of valuable information about self defense. (First lesson: real-world gun violence is never anything like in movies)
- TheBigSalad 6y agoI hear this argument a lot, but cmon. It's really not that hard
- akvadrako 6y agoWhat makes you say that? There is a big difference in lethality between a cop who practices in the shooting range regularly and the average criminal.
- medium_burrito 6y agoClearly you haven't seen the police qualifying at the range!
- giardini 6y agoYeah, the cop is much more likely to unload one or more high-capacity magazines than the bad guy is. But you're wrong in this way: shot-for-shot the cop is no more likely to hit a target than is a bad guy(BG). Difference is the cop won't quit shooting until he's out of ammo (likely multiple 20-round magazines) b/c he's required to stay at the scene, whereas the BG will (sensibly) leave ASAP.
- Dem_Boys 6y agoI was stunned while purchasing my most recent firearm (about 6 months ago). I watched multiple middle aged, nicely dressed ladies purchasing guns. One lady even had the new gun taken away from her because she was pointing it at others (not on purpose) while the store employee processed the transaction. I can't blame them, this past year we've all witnessed that our society can quickly change into something that is unrecognizable.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y agoTo be honest, if there truly is 50% of the population that thinks rushing the capital to stop a new elected government from existing, it's not the end of the world to think some undesirable minorities might not be wanted. 2 blocks down, there's still a TRUMP 2020 flag with a nazi flag right under it so I'm keeping my AR-15 nearby.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoYou do realize that not 50% of the population rushed the Capitol, right?
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y agoThat is true but there could be a large subset of those who voted for Trump who also support the actions of those who rushed the Capitol. I do find it terrifying to picture 74 million people rushing the Capitol
- ceilingcorner 6y agocould be Yeah, I think you are just making this all up in your head.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y agoSadly, I wish it was true, attacks against Asian Americans are already higher than the past 10 years, so certain undesirables are already being targeted.
- akarma 6y agoIt's disappointing to me that the person being interviewed doesn't believe or understand how she's aligned with good conservatives and libertarians on this issue, or much of 'the right' as she puts it. Those groups fear the government roughly as much as she does now, and that's by-and-large why they own guns. She doesn't seem to reach a second-order level of thinking and realize that common fear — she just sticks to "my marginalization makes me fear the government and own guns" without thinking of why they own guns. It's sad because there could be much more common ground, which leads to more considerate dialogue.
- Robotbeat 6y agoProbably because conservative groups like the NRA have (against their own propaganda) been largely silent when African American gun owners are killed by police. The reaction of conservatives to the BLM movement has confirmed for many that conservatives don’t fear government overreach but that they fear any disruption to the social (ie including racial) status quo. I think many would object to that characterization, but it’s hard to argue that there has been pretty strong resistance from conservatives to stick their neck out to oppose police brutality. (There are exceptions to this, by Romney and some more libertarian types, but they’re much too rare). So the question is, is an ideology like conservativism what it claims to outsiders or to what its adherents actually do and say to one another? Professed vs revealed preferences.
- alphabettsy 6y agoWhy is this downvoted?
- edbob 6y agoBecause it's tribal propaganda that adds nothing to the discussion. There are a myriad of plausible reasons not to want to defund the police, but Robotbeat is parroting the party line that there are no possible legitimate reasons and that only racists can hold that opinion.
- 6y ago
- austincheney 6y agoLiberalizing gun ownership has been researched to death and everybody just ignores the research as convenient for their personal opinion. The stats repeatedly say the same several things: * crimes in general go down as more people carry firearms legally, but by far less than most firearm advocates claim. * though, the most dramatic of that decrease is related to violent crime as some arguments might claim. * when firearms become more lawfully common police are slightly more likely to be victims of violent crime. * the numbers related to crime change as a result of change to gun laws tend to be tiny even for high population density large cities indicating many arguments on the subject are exaggerated to fit a narrative.
- clircle 6y agoCan you share your sources?
- yowlingcat 6y agoThis makes a lot of sense intuitively, and I've kinda arrived at the same conclusions. What are your favorite sources to share with others about this?
- austincheney 6y agoI like an article I read about on Arstechnica several years back.
- loginatnine 6y agoFunny you mention people ignoring research yet you failed to mention a proper source (an arstechnica article is not (though the sources of this article might be)) for your claims.
- loginatnine 6y agoPlease provide your sources for these claims.
- 6y ago
- hooande 6y agoThere is no rational justification for private gun ownership. Owning a gun isn't the same thing as having it available and ready to stop a crime, which is why that happens so rarely. If the police can't provide adequate protection from violence then we need to change the system until they can. Anything else is horribly unfair to people who pay taxes but can't reliably use guns to protect themselves (ie the elderly or disabled) There are very few activities which require a firearm to be owned as opposed to rented. Hunters can hunt and marksman can shoot, as long as the weapons are returned as part of a standard rental. Guns won't stop the (American) government from asserting its will. Many people have tried that, believe me it doesn't work out. Merely owning a gun won't stop a determined adversary or provide you with a modicum of additional safety unless you've been trained in how to quickly acquire and shoot it. An assault rifle is of almost 0 value in a non-war urban setting, unless you plan to be firing at many targets at a range of 200m+ Statistically, the overwhelming majority of guns end up harming their owner or their owner's family. Actual self-defense is near the bottom of real uses for fired personal weapons. Don't buy a gun. Buy a dog. You'll be safer
- mberning 6y agoYou should sub Active Self Protection on YT. He covers a lot of self defense cases which happen more frequently than you might expect. He also doesn’t sugar coat it when people screw up.
- YPCrumble 6y agoYou say that self defense is near the bottom of real uses for fired personal weapons. That’s not a useful metric because a gun doesn’t need to be fired to be a deterrent.
- hooande 6y agoa deterrent from what? it's true that just flashing a gun can stop crime, but that happens no more commonly than stopping a crime by firing one. And in the majority of cases where someone simply brandishes a weapon it's pointed at someone who is undesirable or different and not actually a threat
- Waterluvian 6y agoI wasn't for this in the past but after watching the racism, bias, and impotence of American policing these past years, I'd probably buy one too if I had to live there.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoPolitical positions are almost always tribalist in nature and not based on rational analysis. Case in point: the people arguing that drug prohibition is ineffective are often the same ones arguing for gun prohibition. If prohibition doesn't work for drugs, why will it work for guns? It isn't a left or right thing, just a people thing. The same phenomenon exists in the opposite direction; guns good but drugs bad.
- alphabettsy 6y agoAre you sure they’re the same people? A good number of leftists are advocates for gun ownership with training and also support legalization of drugs. Liberals generally don’t support drug legalization, but guns and drugs really aren’t the same thing and the reasons aren’t the same either.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoIf that were the case, then it wouldn't be absolutely verboten for Democrats to support gun ownership. Maybe some smaller groups of leftists or libertarians are different, but they have little actual political relevance.
- alphabettsy 6y agoCan you show me the evidence that Democrats do not support gun ownership? There’s plenty of talk about restricting specific types, basically based on appearance, of weapons but haven’t seen much suggesting they’d like to ban them or make them completely unavailable as is often suggested by the right. Libertarians are not leftists and this might surprise you but sometimes political parties do things different from what many of their voters might want. Consider that very large numbers on the left voted for Bernie Sanders and support his policies, but the party had largely avoided taking them up wholeheartedly or at all.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoDoes anyone actually think "just some restrictions" don't inevitably snowball into more restrictions? My read is that Democrats have an overwhelming hostile position towards guns and would ban them entirely if given the political will. At best, it's a "don't talk about it" position, akin to supporting abortion and being a Republican. > this might surprise you The snark is not necessary. If you can't comment about politics without being dismissive and arrogant, don't comment at all. Bernie Sanders is for restrictions on guns. AOC is for restrictions on guns. I don't know what mainstream leftist is for widespread gun ownership. Can you suggest any? As I said in my comment, I think it's primarily a cultural thing. Left-leaning urbanites don't interact with guns, whereas right-leaning rural residents often use them for sports and hunting. While some leftist groups are for it, this is again a fringe thing that doesn't exist in real life all that much.
- BaseS4 6y agoWhat do guns have to do with HackerNews? Are these 3D printed guns, the kind that circumvent every single knee-jerk regulation?
- astura 6y agoLiving in a house with a gun increases your odds of death https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death "Alarming" spike in deadly unintentional shootings by kids as gun sales soar during lockdowns https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unintentional-shootings-guns-kids-sales-coronavirus-lockdowns/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unintentional-shootings-guns-ki...
- raindropm 6y agoI'm an outsider, so I never understand how our American friends feel about this(the opinions divide, I guess) Because to me, guns breeds paranoia and distrust. It create the never ending vicious cycle of "That guy have one so I should have one to protect my family too, just in case." But what if, say, having guns increase the risk of being attack from bad guy instead, because now they feel that you're a threat to them?
- readflaggedcomm 6y agoIf the implication is that the innocent escalate an arms race by fearing the guilty, I reject it.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoHyperbole! The cycle ends quite quickly, with everyone armed. And no evidence of that (increased risk). The 'bad guys' avoid getting shot at. Folks who are armed are at greater risk from themselves than from an intruder.
- john4532452 6y agoGuns enforce civility. Physically stronger person can not bully a weaker person. The power is balanced. Thanks to technology.
- badmadrad 6y agoThe biggest threat to humans is other humans. You can be friendly and cooperative but still wary of people you don't know. In America, you aren't forced to have a gun. Freedom is our core ethos. You choose to have a gun. You are more than welcome to take it on faith you will never be in a situation where you need it, and thankfully most aren't.
- ykevinator 6y agoGuns should be freely available with mandatory insurance because they are a massive risk pool.
- underseacables 6y agoA gun is a very visceral projection of constitutional rights. I wonder if people buying guns lately are doing so because they feel that “their rights” as a whole are under threat. For whatever reason that may be, buying a gun is a very affirmative way of exercising your rights.
- Lammy 6y agoYou can trace modern firearms prohibitions to civil-rights-era California with the intent of disarming the Black Panthers, so I oppose prohibitions on the grounds that I personally view them as inherently racist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
- addicted 6y agoExcept no one is demanding prohibition.
- brokenmachine 6y agoWhen African Americans start acquiring legal guns, the laws are sure to be changed.