5 ms·

> It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal

by nverno 5y ago

> It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort. It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms. Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. One way to significantly erode individual's/citizen's power, and in turn give power to government, is take away their ability to defend themselves. People worry that as government becomes more powerful and citizens more reliant there is greater likelihood of oppressive government, in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope

Jedd 5y ago
> Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. For context, can you clarify if the many you're referring to there are some fellow USA citizens? If so, I'll note that USA is < 5% of global population, and also note a very fresh Pew paper[0] which indicated more than half of that population was keen on stricter gun controls. So 'many' has some caveats around it. > They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons? If it's the former, then we're back to a basic escalation problem, and it's what most other western nation states have avoided falling prey to by, simply, not playing that game. If you trust your fellow citizens with arms - who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'? As to: > ... in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope. I really can't speak to what it looks like from within the borders of the USA, but from outside, it feels that the USA is well down that slippery slope (of eroded freedoms, and citizenry exploitation) compared to many other democratic nations - so guns in the hands of private citizens don't appear to be a panacea. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-a...
- nverno 5y ago
  Yea I'm referring to fellow US citizens (I am also an Australian citizen, but the Aussie half of my family could care less about guns). I grew up rural in US and now live in the city. It may as well be two different countries with respect to views on gun ownership, so nationwide polls won't capture any of the variation (also state to state is massive difference). > Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons? Any living threat, which could be a much much larger attacker or mob of attackers. Consider the rattlesnake, it's the same thing- a great deterrent. It's peace of mind, a last resort, something that's better to have and not need than to need and not have. > who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'? Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to eachothers? Or the barbarism of human history?
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    > Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to eachothers? Or the barbarism of human history? We live in a tiny window of prosperity and safety. WWII was only 76 years ago. Syria is a short plane ride away. Afghanistan is a contemporary product of our own hubris. Yet people still assume, for reasons that I genuinely cannot fathom, that this tiny window of privilege that we're lucky enough to inhabit will last indefinitely, and never backslide.
  - Jedd 5y ago
    Hang on. You came in with: > It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms. And now: > Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to each others? Or the barbarism of human history? Those positions aren't precisely orthogonal, but they certainly have some conflicting sentiment behind them. As to owning a handgun for private use for: > Any living threat, which could be a much much larger attacker or mob of attackers. ... from a naive perspective (I've never been in that situation, thankfully) it feels like any advantage I may have, via agility, negotiation, ability to out-run, etc, would be negated if everyone involved had a handgun. Certainly if everyone in that scenario is armed, there's no clear advantage to me to be armed. (I concur that if the other party(ies) were not armed, and I was, then that's advantageous to me. And if they were armed, and I was not, well that's also very bad for me. But that's not the likely scenario in a heavily gun-equipped scenario.) Anyway, I'm sure you've gone through all this before, with many people smarter / more informed than me. Precisely why many Americans are convinced gun ownership is an answer to something, despite all the statistical evidence, I'm just not likely to ever understand. Thank you for your patience with my questions.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - parineum 5y ago
      >Precisely why many Americans are convinced gun ownership is an answer to something, despite all the statistical evidence, I'm just not likely to ever understand. Thank you for your patience with my questions. It probably doesn't change much but Americans ask the opposite question since ownership is already legal. We ask what you hope to solve by removing gun ownership. From the perspective of a gun owner who is in favor of better gun control, the biggest issue with gun legislation in the US is that those proposing restrictions either have no idea what they're talking about or are just catering to those who don't. The pro gun control crowd is too busy inventing a nonsensical category of guns to ban ("assualt weapons") to even acknowledge that the homicide rate comes from poor people killing eachother with cheap, concealable handguns.
jollybean 5y ago
" They provide you with a reasonably effective defense" No, they don't at all. Just the opposite actually. I get the 'Guns to defend against Tyranny' argument, that's kind of reasonable. But as 'personal defence' they don't work nearly as well as having strong gun regulations which keep guns out of the hands of the morons. It's much safer walking down the street in Canada where you can't legally carry a gun, because there are just so few guns the baddies have a harder time getting them, and use them much less. I do think we ought to be more concerned about authoritarian creep ... but guns are probably not the best solution to that either, as if it gets to that level it's very, very bad. Legislative, civic reform, voting, literacy etc. would be more helpful there.
- spacephysics 5y ago
  But your premise rests on the trust that criminals won’t obtain guns illegally if more restrictions are created. On mobile, so don’t have the numbers, but I recall a large amount of gun crime is done by illegally obtained firearms.
  - megablast 5y ago
    No, it rely on the fact it’s harder for criminals to get guns if it’s harder for everyone.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    It doesn't rest on the premise that bad guys won't obtain guns illegally ... because they for sure will and that's the case everywhere. Supply and Demand applies to the Black Market as much as it does to legal markets. Again Japan is a great example: there are pretty much no guns allowed, anywhere, and guess what? There is almost zero gun crime. There's no doubt that anyone with basic resources and need could obtain a gun if they really put their minds to it, but that's part of Supply and Demand, it's just not worth the extended effort in most cases. But if you have them lying around, with easy access, and your whole crew has them, and your rival gang is also easily and well armed, well, then you have a problem. The argument that guns are good for personal defence just does not add up, it's just irrational at face value that everyone running around with guns (even legal ones) creates safer conditions. The only place they would be useful is in highly dangerous situations, ironically made dangerous at least in part because historically lax gun regulations. If I lived in Mexico, I may very well own a gun, but in Maine, it would be basically pointless for the purposes of 'self defence' there. Switzerland has high gun ownership, but they do not really have pistols and they do not carry them for self defence. Mexico has strict gun laws, but they are not enforced, so the laws don't have much of an effect. USA -> Can/Aus -> UK/Europe -> Japan form a fairly straight forward examples of ever stricter gun control leading to considerably less gun crime. Note that some of those places have elevated levels of physical assaults, and knife attacks, but that leads to considerably fewer injuries and fatalities. The 'stand against tyranny' argument notwithstanding, I think there's some legitimacy there, but that's another can of worms.
mbrodersen 5y ago
Honest question: would you trust your fellow citizens to have access to nuclear weapons as well?

by nverno 5y ago

Jedd 5y ago

> Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. For context, can you clarify if the many you're referring to there are some fellow USA citizens? If so, I'll note that USA is < 5% of global population, and also note a very fresh Pew paper[0] which indicated more than half of that population was keen on stricter gun controls. So 'many' has some caveats around it. > They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons? If it's the former, then we're back to a basic escalation problem, and it's what most other western nation states have avoided falling prey to by, simply, not playing that game. If you trust your fellow citizens with arms - who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'? As to: > ... in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope. I really can't speak to what it looks like from within the borders of the USA, but from outside, it feels that the USA is well down that slippery slope (of eroded freedoms, and citizenry exploitation) compared to many other democratic nations - so guns in the hands of private citizens don't appear to be a panacea. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-a...

nverno 5y ago
Yea I'm referring to fellow US citizens (I am also an Australian citizen, but the Aussie half of my family could care less about guns). I grew up rural in US and now live in the city. It may as well be two different countries with respect to views on gun ownership, so nationwide polls won't capture any of the variation (also state to state is massive difference). > Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons? Any living threat, which could be a much much larger attacker or mob of attackers. Consider the rattlesnake, it's the same thing- a great deterrent. It's peace of mind, a last resort, something that's better to have and not need than to need and not have. > who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'? Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to eachothers? Or the barbarism of human history?
- teakettle42 5y ago
  > Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to eachothers? Or the barbarism of human history? We live in a tiny window of prosperity and safety. WWII was only 76 years ago. Syria is a short plane ride away. Afghanistan is a contemporary product of our own hubris. Yet people still assume, for reasons that I genuinely cannot fathom, that this tiny window of privilege that we're lucky enough to inhabit will last indefinitely, and never backslide.
- Jedd 5y ago
  Hang on. You came in with: > It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms. And now: > Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to each others? Or the barbarism of human history? Those positions aren't precisely orthogonal, but they certainly have some conflicting sentiment behind them. As to owning a handgun for private use for: > Any living threat, which could be a much much larger attacker or mob of attackers. ... from a naive perspective (I've never been in that situation, thankfully) it feels like any advantage I may have, via agility, negotiation, ability to out-run, etc, would be negated if everyone involved had a handgun. Certainly if everyone in that scenario is armed, there's no clear advantage to me to be armed. (I concur that if the other party(ies) were not armed, and I was, then that's advantageous to me. And if they were armed, and I was not, well that's also very bad for me. But that's not the likely scenario in a heavily gun-equipped scenario.) Anyway, I'm sure you've gone through all this before, with many people smarter / more informed than me. Precisely why many Americans are convinced gun ownership is an answer to something, despite all the statistical evidence, I'm just not likely to ever understand. Thank you for your patience with my questions.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - parineum 5y ago
    >Precisely why many Americans are convinced gun ownership is an answer to something, despite all the statistical evidence, I'm just not likely to ever understand. Thank you for your patience with my questions. It probably doesn't change much but Americans ask the opposite question since ownership is already legal. We ask what you hope to solve by removing gun ownership. From the perspective of a gun owner who is in favor of better gun control, the biggest issue with gun legislation in the US is that those proposing restrictions either have no idea what they're talking about or are just catering to those who don't. The pro gun control crowd is too busy inventing a nonsensical category of guns to ban ("assualt weapons") to even acknowledge that the homicide rate comes from poor people killing eachother with cheap, concealable handguns.

jollybean 5y ago

" They provide you with a reasonably effective defense" No, they don't at all. Just the opposite actually. I get the 'Guns to defend against Tyranny' argument, that's kind of reasonable. But as 'personal defence' they don't work nearly as well as having strong gun regulations which keep guns out of the hands of the morons. It's much safer walking down the street in Canada where you can't legally carry a gun, because there are just so few guns the baddies have a harder time getting them, and use them much less. I do think we ought to be more concerned about authoritarian creep ... but guns are probably not the best solution to that either, as if it gets to that level it's very, very bad. Legislative, civic reform, voting, literacy etc. would be more helpful there.

spacephysics 5y ago
But your premise rests on the trust that criminals won’t obtain guns illegally if more restrictions are created. On mobile, so don’t have the numbers, but I recall a large amount of gun crime is done by illegally obtained firearms.
- megablast 5y ago
  No, it rely on the fact it’s harder for criminals to get guns if it’s harder for everyone.
- jollybean 5y ago
  It doesn't rest on the premise that bad guys won't obtain guns illegally ... because they for sure will and that's the case everywhere. Supply and Demand applies to the Black Market as much as it does to legal markets. Again Japan is a great example: there are pretty much no guns allowed, anywhere, and guess what? There is almost zero gun crime. There's no doubt that anyone with basic resources and need could obtain a gun if they really put their minds to it, but that's part of Supply and Demand, it's just not worth the extended effort in most cases. But if you have them lying around, with easy access, and your whole crew has them, and your rival gang is also easily and well armed, well, then you have a problem. The argument that guns are good for personal defence just does not add up, it's just irrational at face value that everyone running around with guns (even legal ones) creates safer conditions. The only place they would be useful is in highly dangerous situations, ironically made dangerous at least in part because historically lax gun regulations. If I lived in Mexico, I may very well own a gun, but in Maine, it would be basically pointless for the purposes of 'self defence' there. Switzerland has high gun ownership, but they do not really have pistols and they do not carry them for self defence. Mexico has strict gun laws, but they are not enforced, so the laws don't have much of an effect. USA -> Can/Aus -> UK/Europe -> Japan form a fairly straight forward examples of ever stricter gun control leading to considerably less gun crime. Note that some of those places have elevated levels of physical assaults, and knife attacks, but that leads to considerably fewer injuries and fatalities. The 'stand against tyranny' argument notwithstanding, I think there's some legitimacy there, but that's another can of worms.

mbrodersen 5y ago

Honest question: would you trust your fellow citizens to have access to nuclear weapons as well?