6 ms·

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 a

by 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.
mLuby 5y ago
> Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to each other? Or the barbarism of human history? Nearly all perpetrated by the armed against the unarmed. The lesson of "might makes right" is to be suspicious of might before it makes right.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by nverno 5y ago

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.

mLuby 5y ago

> Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to each other? Or the barbarism of human history? Nearly all perpetrated by the armed against the unarmed. The lesson of "might makes right" is to be suspicious of might before it makes right.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]