5 ms·

> 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?

by 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.

Jedd 5y ago
Well, yes, that question would be asked, as the current state, that the majority of US citizens have grown up with, is now considered normal by them. Reasonable enough, but many people have access to information about how the world outside those borders operates - which is why free healthcare, minimum wage, and other changes, are now being a bit more actively discussed. Anyway. > We ask what you hope to solve by removing gun ownership. What's on offer is a significant (order of magnitude) reduction in the number of violent gun deaths. [0] No one's trying to sell this to the USA. OTOH various agencies within the USA are certainly trying to sell the idea that this is a bad thing. The budget differential of the two groups is enormous - consequently it'll almost definitely never happen. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/743579605/how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/7435796...
- parineum 5y ago
  > What's on offer is a significant (order of magnitude) reduction in the number of violent gun deaths. I think I wasn't totally clear about the point I was trying to make. Very very very few politicians in the US (I can't name a prominent one but I'm hedging) are for any sort of firearm prohibition that would put us in line with any of the nations we are often compared with. So, given that, the restrictions being proposed will not and should not be expected to bring us in line with those nations. Therefore, the question I'm asking is, given the proposed restrictions, what benefits should we expect. The point I wanted to make was that the answer to that question, "what benefits should we expect?", is basically none from the current viable proposals and that's why, while I am for more gun control, I am against most existing and proposed gun control measures as I feel they are either completely ineffective or overly burdensome for their effectiveness. I find the oft-said quote of "If we can save even one life..." type of argument a massive red flag.
  - Jedd 5y ago
    Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that - with the constraint of what's currently being proposed, a small set of tentative / cautious controls around gun ownership - that there's not much to gain, so consequently there's not much point trying ... ? If that's roughly it, then I'd suggest: a) the cautiousness is a political necessity - and does not preclude the option of pursuing stronger, but similarly sentiment policy changes down the road. First steps, and all that. b) my understanding is that even very basic, not hugely contentious (almost bipartisan support for) ideas, such as removal of full automatic and ridiculously high calibre from the marketplace, stopping sales at gun shows without background checks, cooling off periods, requiring safe storage gun cabinets, etc - would result in a measurable decrease in deaths (murders, massacres, suicides, accidents). In any case, it feels like even if (b) wasn't a highly likely, the cost of doing it is relatively low to the potential (but, really almost guaranteed) outcomes. > I find the oft-said quote of "If we can save even one life..." type of argument a massive red flag. I don't speak for all non-American citizens, but outside of the country looking in, it feels like (media, social groups, etc) this past year or four we've had an alarming reveal about the attitudes of a surprisingly large portion of American society -- even if something trivially inconvenient is requested of them, that demonstrably will save the lives of other citizens, there's an instinctive and violent push-back. So, yes indeed - suggesting that some lives could be saved probably isn't a sufficient and satisfactory argument for many people there. But that's a separate problem.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

The love of guns by certain segments of society can be tied to the US history of fear of slave rebellions and Indian raids.

R0b0t1 5y ago
You're saying this like it is an accurate portrayal of the entire modern positive sentiment towards guns. The honest truth of it is a lot of people just really do not like the government.
- klyrs 5y ago
  "Certain segments" != "the entire".
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    I am aware and that is what I am pointing out, but he's said this multiple times in a way that insinuates everyone who owns a gun is doing it for racist reasons.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      "Some cows are green" is not an insinuation that "all cows are green." > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I guess I should add, if you can't find a way to respond to a comment without violating the guidelines, it's better to downvote, or flag if it's called for, and move on. I've discarded quite a number of half-written responses (and hastily deleted a few freshly-posted comments) on that basis.
      - R0b0t1 5y ago
        I didn't violate the guidelines. It seems clear what their intent was and I added information to the conversation. I could still be wrong. To me, if he was trying to usefully inform other readers he would have commented on why his/her perceived historical connotations are meaningful.
        klyrs 5y ago
        > I could still be wrong. To me, if he was trying to usefully inform other readers he would have commented on why his/her perceived historical connotations are meaningful. Aha. See, if you had phrased that as a question, there could be room for curious conversation. Instead, you took the least generous interpretation and ran with that.
        R0b0t1 5y ago
        There's far less generous interpretations available. I could have transparently accused him of race baiting. If I did something similar, like ran around pointing out that children can actually consent do actually have a working theory of the world in a thread about CP you'd probably question whether or not I have a load of CP on my computer. There is something as too much benefit of the doubt. So... maybe?
    - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
      I haven't said anything multiple times.
nverno 5y ago
don't forget fear of being raided by the mongol hordes and viking skirmishers. We musn't forget these ever present dangers