3 ms·

Just get the damn guns out of their reach. This “problem” is unique to America because of the stupid romance with guns. Stop selling the guns like candies and

by ay 5y ago

Just get the damn guns out of their reach. This “problem” is unique to America because of the stupid romance with guns. Stop selling the guns like candies and move on, like the rest of the world. Sure, there will be problems, but smaller.

tbalsam 5y ago
Knives are one step away -- I don't think the gun is as important in this case. I'd argue for sensible gun control, but removing guns period could destabilize victims too. Having a sense of safety and security in the event of a home invasion, etc, is incredibly important. Not having that/taking it away feels like the easy paper solution, but is possibly much more harmful in the end (like forcibly institutionalizing people in local mental health hospitals, I'd note).
- tpush 5y ago
  Very few people kill themselves with knives, but a ton do with hand guns. And people in countries without such a gun culture do not have worse self defense outcomes than those with one, so that argument doesn’t seem to hold scientific water. No idea how you get to institutionalization in your argument, either.
  - convery 5y ago
    People choose the easiest tool available to them. A common method in Europe is a belt to the doorhandle which is more painful and slower than a bullet. Removing tools does not prevent the outcome, just increases the suffering.
    - umvi 5y ago
      As a counter point though, different suicide methods have different fatality probabilities. Handgun to the head has a really high fatality probability, rope to the neck less so. Removing a high fatality suicide method could cause people to turn to a less fatal method.
      - frongpik 5y ago
        You sound like an efficient assets manager. People turn to a suicide because their life is miserable, often for objective reasons (e.g. cancer) and you may find it hard to believe, but it's their right to end it.
irrational 5y ago
Even if they were no longer sold, there are already more privately owned guns than people in circulation. And population levels are predicted to plummet, which means the number of guns per capita will go up. And there isn’t really a record of who has the guns. I know a man who ran a gun selling side business who gave all his guns away when he got cancer, before he died. Illegal? Sure. But now those guns are impossible to track down. That isn’t the only case I’m aware of. The only real solution is to amend the constitution to remove the right to bear arms. I have no doubt that would lead to full scale civil war.
- ay 5y ago
  True, so using the word “just” was a huge oversimplification on my side, I am sorry for that. I agree the US constitution can not be changed without getting the people’s minds changed about the guns being a meaningful freedom defense mechanism. But it is effectively a religion from what I see (I am not in the US). That makes any potential change very hard.
frongpik 5y ago
It's their right, though. You can't take away someone's rights because you feel morally superior.

by ay 5y ago

tbalsam 5y ago

Knives are one step away -- I don't think the gun is as important in this case. I'd argue for sensible gun control, but removing guns period could destabilize victims too. Having a sense of safety and security in the event of a home invasion, etc, is incredibly important. Not having that/taking it away feels like the easy paper solution, but is possibly much more harmful in the end (like forcibly institutionalizing people in local mental health hospitals, I'd note).

tpush 5y ago
Very few people kill themselves with knives, but a ton do with hand guns. And people in countries without such a gun culture do not have worse self defense outcomes than those with one, so that argument doesn’t seem to hold scientific water. No idea how you get to institutionalization in your argument, either.
- convery 5y ago
  People choose the easiest tool available to them. A common method in Europe is a belt to the doorhandle which is more painful and slower than a bullet. Removing tools does not prevent the outcome, just increases the suffering.
  - umvi 5y ago
    As a counter point though, different suicide methods have different fatality probabilities. Handgun to the head has a really high fatality probability, rope to the neck less so. Removing a high fatality suicide method could cause people to turn to a less fatal method.
    - frongpik 5y ago
      You sound like an efficient assets manager. People turn to a suicide because their life is miserable, often for objective reasons (e.g. cancer) and you may find it hard to believe, but it's their right to end it.

irrational 5y ago

Even if they were no longer sold, there are already more privately owned guns than people in circulation. And population levels are predicted to plummet, which means the number of guns per capita will go up. And there isn’t really a record of who has the guns. I know a man who ran a gun selling side business who gave all his guns away when he got cancer, before he died. Illegal? Sure. But now those guns are impossible to track down. That isn’t the only case I’m aware of. The only real solution is to amend the constitution to remove the right to bear arms. I have no doubt that would lead to full scale civil war.

ay 5y ago
True, so using the word “just” was a huge oversimplification on my side, I am sorry for that. I agree the US constitution can not be changed without getting the people’s minds changed about the guns being a meaningful freedom defense mechanism. But it is effectively a religion from what I see (I am not in the US). That makes any potential change very hard.

frongpik 5y ago

It's their right, though. You can't take away someone's rights because you feel morally superior.