4 ms·

FWIW, this is the view point held by many people regarded as “gun nuts”. If everybody has them, the violence against anyone carries the threat of deadly force

FWIW, this is the view point held by many people regarded as “gun nuts”. If everybody has them, the violence against anyone carries the threat of deadly force in response. There is no greater deterrent to violence. There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago
Mass shootings are headline grabbing, but the majority of homicides are interpersonal conflicts that escalate. If everyone had guns, there's no way it would not result in more gun deaths.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Even if your uncited claim IS correct..so what. Freedom is not safe and safety is not freedom. The world is not safe.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    I always find this to be such an interesting peek into the minds of others. The ability to love who you like is freedom. The ability to ingest whatever substance you like is freedom. Neither of these freedoms statistically put others in danger. One of these things is not like the other. You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. I find this viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice lives for this particular 'freedom' to be a little sociopathic.
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Safety is a tyrants best friend. >>You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. I find your viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice your freedom in the name of safety.. a little unaware, ungrateful, and privileged. This current veneer of civilization that you're so privileged to live in exists because of guns and violence and is actually a rarity in the history of humankind. If you want to learn more about this you can go to the library and ask them for a book on the past 100,000 years of human history.
      - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        >You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. One does not have the 'right' to drive a car. It is a licenced and regulated activity. 18 wheelers are more dangerous than cars, and thus are subject to more restrictive regulation. >Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. What you're talking about here is the state's monopoly on sanctioned violence. Guns are a part of that, but not a requirement. There are plenty of 'beat cops' around the world that discharge their duties without relying on firearms.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        > Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. Exactly. You're SO RIGHT about government weighing the costs and benefits. Which is why the founding fathers made gun rights the second amendment! Isn't it great!? The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. I'm glad we're in agreement about cost vs benefits. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        >The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. Right. They weighed the costs and benefits of giving every citizen the right to own a muzzle loading flintlock musket. Such a gun was a tool used to harvest game and defend the homestead. I doubt they would make the same call today when it comes to semi auto weapons with detachable mags. They are designed to kill as many people in as short of a time as possible.
        5y ago
    - influx 5y ago
      I’m curious what your thoughts are on democide: “ After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimated that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle.”
    - brightball 5y ago
      It’s pretty simple. Every person who is bigger and stronger than another is something who can maim or kill another. Firearms simply level the playing field. Domestic violence against women is a thing because men are almost always bigger and stronger than women, meaning without access to a weapon every woman is potentially vulnerable to the violence of a man.
      - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        >Domestic violence against women is a thing because men are almost always bigger and stronger than women, meaning without access to a weapon every woman is potentially vulnerable to the violence of a man. Sadly, it often turns out that firearms are often turned against women in a household: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9125010/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9125010/ >readily available firearms place women at particularly high risk of homicide at the hands of a spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a close relative. It's hard to secure a firearm against one's partner.
        brightball 5y ago
        It is, but how different would any of those situations have turned out without a firearm with a violent man usually twice the size of the woman at risk?
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        Studies have shown that the more 'detached' one is from the actual act of violence, the easier that violence is to commit. All you have to do is look at domestic violence homicides in other similar countries to see that introducing guns to domestic disturbances is a recipe for people going to the morgue instead of the hospital.
      - david38 5y ago
        You’re wildly incorrect. Domestic violence against men from women is also sky high but wildly underreported. The highest rates of domestic violence are between lesbian couples. Violence has less to do with size than willingness, exposure, snd skill. Firearms do level the playing field, but only for skill and skill. This is why even though women benefit more from owning a gun, they very rare carry one. Most simply aren’t willing to engage. They would rather run away. This is of course the correct choice if you are unwilling to use a gun. Carrying one without will is worse than being unarmed.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  A well-armed society is a polite society.
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    Despite literally all evidence to the contrary. Rate of gun ownership is directly correlated with violent crime rates.
    - brightball 5y ago
      All evidence points to exactly the opposite of what you're stating. Ignore the title, unpack the data. https://mises.org/wire/guns-how-ny-times-manipulates-data https://mises.org/wire/guns-how-ny-times-manipulates-data Framed a different way, there are over 400 million guns in circulation in the US. At the moment, more than the total population of the US. Citation: 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... If we look at 2020, the worst year for gun violence in decades in the US there were 20,000 gun homicides and 24,000 gun suicides. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/23/2020-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/23/2020-shooti... Taken together, that means that there were 44,000 gun abuses out of 400,000,000 in circulation which is annual abuse rate of 0.011%. Inversely, that means that the annual non-abuse rate, or the safe responsible use rate is 99.989%. If I remember correctly from my statistics 101 class, 99.99% is considered "statistically perfect".
      - ethanbond 5y ago
        Errr... my claim is not that most guns are involved in violent crime.
        brightball 5y ago
        Do you have a citation on that? It's a pretty well known stat that violent crimes in the US have been steadily declining since 1990 all while gun ownership has been steadily increasing.
vkou 5y ago
> There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected. Actually, they do, and the reason for it is that in a mass shooting situation, even if you have a gun, you usually have zero idea of what to do with it, and where to shoot back. Vegas has concealed open carry, and that didn't do a goddamn thing to stop the 2017 massacre. Also, what do you think the SWAT team responding to a shooting is going to do to you if you are on the scene, with your gun? You may get a chance to surrender and get things cleared up, or just as likely, you may just get shot on sight.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Vegas is interesting because the guy had to become a sniper and had to have a very specific location to do his shootings. Because of all the concealed carry. And what else is interesting is that the shooter chose an extremely crowded music festival to do his shooting. A fertilizer bomb or hidden IUD could have just easily killed as many people just like the Boston marathon bombing(which could just as easily had more than one nail bomb). So should nail bombs also be illegal? Oh yeah they are! Mass gatherings are always at risk of mass violence. Airplanes/airports had the same issue before 9/11. Mass gathering of people and easy ingress of deadly weapons/bombs. So too schools. The lesson for mass gatherings is to secure a perimeter and do your best to eliminate deadly items from entering the perimeter. Its not really a gun specific issue. Its a vulnerable crowd issue.
jkubicek 5y ago
This doesn't make sense to me. Don't most mass shooters go into it expecting to die? If you know you're going to die anyway, what deterrent would armed civilians be? Glancing at this list of mass shootings, it seems like most end with the shooter committing suicide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
- brightball 5y ago
  I can’t say for sure what a shooter is thinking, but the shooting of innocent people stops the moment the shooter is on defense. This was a lesson police learned after Columbine.
soperj 5y ago
>There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected. Most mass shootings take place in the USA, which has the most guns per capita on earth by far, double the #2 country. How many more guns would make a difference?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- brightball 5y ago
  It only takes one where the act is happening to put the shooter on defense and stop the massacre immediately.
  - JohnWhigham 5y ago
    Easier said than done. You really expect someone to be that rational when they were already stressed enough to use their firearm in the first place?
    - brightball 5y ago
      Who, the shooter or the person shooting back? I don't expect a shooter to be rational, but I do expect them to self preserve when being shot at. That's not rational, that's instinct. Police have repeatedly said ever since Columbine that it is most important to engage a shooter as soon as possible for this exact reason.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >that it is most important to engage a shooter as soon as possible for this exact reason. "Shooting your way out of an ambush" (i.e. taking initiative when attacked) has been tactical doctrine for literally every armed group, police, military, etc, for decades.
sudhirj 5y ago
I don't have the data, but because this idea I'm curious to know what the crime rates are per capita in countries that mandate military training for the entire population. I think Israeli people (both men and women) do mandatory military and combat training - does this translate to a decrease in domestic violence and shootings?

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

Mass shootings are headline grabbing, but the majority of homicides are interpersonal conflicts that escalate. If everyone had guns, there's no way it would not result in more gun deaths.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
Even if your uncited claim IS correct..so what. Freedom is not safe and safety is not freedom. The world is not safe.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  I always find this to be such an interesting peek into the minds of others. The ability to love who you like is freedom. The ability to ingest whatever substance you like is freedom. Neither of these freedoms statistically put others in danger. One of these things is not like the other. You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. I find this viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice lives for this particular 'freedom' to be a little sociopathic.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Safety is a tyrants best friend. >>You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. I find your viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice your freedom in the name of safety.. a little unaware, ungrateful, and privileged. This current veneer of civilization that you're so privileged to live in exists because of guns and violence and is actually a rarity in the history of humankind. If you want to learn more about this you can go to the library and ask them for a book on the past 100,000 years of human history.
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      >You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. One does not have the 'right' to drive a car. It is a licenced and regulated activity. 18 wheelers are more dangerous than cars, and thus are subject to more restrictive regulation. >Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. What you're talking about here is the state's monopoly on sanctioned violence. Guns are a part of that, but not a requirement. There are plenty of 'beat cops' around the world that discharge their duties without relying on firearms.
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        > Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. Exactly. You're SO RIGHT about government weighing the costs and benefits. Which is why the founding fathers made gun rights the second amendment! Isn't it great!? The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. I'm glad we're in agreement about cost vs benefits. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        >The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. Right. They weighed the costs and benefits of giving every citizen the right to own a muzzle loading flintlock musket. Such a gun was a tool used to harvest game and defend the homestead. I doubt they would make the same call today when it comes to semi auto weapons with detachable mags. They are designed to kill as many people in as short of a time as possible.
        5y ago
  - influx 5y ago
    I’m curious what your thoughts are on democide: “ After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimated that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle.”
  - brightball 5y ago
    It’s pretty simple. Every person who is bigger and stronger than another is something who can maim or kill another. Firearms simply level the playing field. Domestic violence against women is a thing because men are almost always bigger and stronger than women, meaning without access to a weapon every woman is potentially vulnerable to the violence of a man.
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      >Domestic violence against women is a thing because men are almost always bigger and stronger than women, meaning without access to a weapon every woman is potentially vulnerable to the violence of a man. Sadly, it often turns out that firearms are often turned against women in a household: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9125010/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9125010/ >readily available firearms place women at particularly high risk of homicide at the hands of a spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a close relative. It's hard to secure a firearm against one's partner.
      - brightball 5y ago
        It is, but how different would any of those situations have turned out without a firearm with a violent man usually twice the size of the woman at risk?
        wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        Studies have shown that the more 'detached' one is from the actual act of violence, the easier that violence is to commit. All you have to do is look at domestic violence homicides in other similar countries to see that introducing guns to domestic disturbances is a recipe for people going to the morgue instead of the hospital.
    - david38 5y ago
      You’re wildly incorrect. Domestic violence against men from women is also sky high but wildly underreported. The highest rates of domestic violence are between lesbian couples. Violence has less to do with size than willingness, exposure, snd skill. Firearms do level the playing field, but only for skill and skill. This is why even though women benefit more from owning a gun, they very rare carry one. Most simply aren’t willing to engage. They would rather run away. This is of course the correct choice if you are unwilling to use a gun. Carrying one without will is worse than being unarmed.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
A well-armed society is a polite society.
- ethanbond 5y ago
  Despite literally all evidence to the contrary. Rate of gun ownership is directly correlated with violent crime rates.
  - brightball 5y ago
    All evidence points to exactly the opposite of what you're stating. Ignore the title, unpack the data. https://mises.org/wire/guns-how-ny-times-manipulates-data https://mises.org/wire/guns-how-ny-times-manipulates-data Framed a different way, there are over 400 million guns in circulation in the US. At the moment, more than the total population of the US. Citation: 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... If we look at 2020, the worst year for gun violence in decades in the US there were 20,000 gun homicides and 24,000 gun suicides. Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/23/2020-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/23/2020-shooti... Taken together, that means that there were 44,000 gun abuses out of 400,000,000 in circulation which is annual abuse rate of 0.011%. Inversely, that means that the annual non-abuse rate, or the safe responsible use rate is 99.989%. If I remember correctly from my statistics 101 class, 99.99% is considered "statistically perfect".
    - ethanbond 5y ago
      Errr... my claim is not that most guns are involved in violent crime.
      - brightball 5y ago
        Do you have a citation on that? It's a pretty well known stat that violent crimes in the US have been steadily declining since 1990 all while gun ownership has been steadily increasing.

vkou 5y ago

> There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected. Actually, they do, and the reason for it is that in a mass shooting situation, even if you have a gun, you usually have zero idea of what to do with it, and where to shoot back. Vegas has concealed open carry, and that didn't do a goddamn thing to stop the 2017 massacre. Also, what do you think the SWAT team responding to a shooting is going to do to you if you are on the scene, with your gun? You may get a chance to surrender and get things cleared up, or just as likely, you may just get shot on sight.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
Vegas is interesting because the guy had to become a sniper and had to have a very specific location to do his shootings. Because of all the concealed carry. And what else is interesting is that the shooter chose an extremely crowded music festival to do his shooting. A fertilizer bomb or hidden IUD could have just easily killed as many people just like the Boston marathon bombing(which could just as easily had more than one nail bomb). So should nail bombs also be illegal? Oh yeah they are! Mass gatherings are always at risk of mass violence. Airplanes/airports had the same issue before 9/11. Mass gathering of people and easy ingress of deadly weapons/bombs. So too schools. The lesson for mass gatherings is to secure a perimeter and do your best to eliminate deadly items from entering the perimeter. Its not really a gun specific issue. Its a vulnerable crowd issue.

jkubicek 5y ago

This doesn't make sense to me. Don't most mass shooters go into it expecting to die? If you know you're going to die anyway, what deterrent would armed civilians be? Glancing at this list of mass shootings, it seems like most end with the shooter committing suicide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...

brightball 5y ago
I can’t say for sure what a shooter is thinking, but the shooting of innocent people stops the moment the shooter is on defense. This was a lesson police learned after Columbine.

soperj 5y ago

>There’s a reason mass shootings happen in places where a swift armed response isn’t expected. Most mass shootings take place in the USA, which has the most guns per capita on earth by far, double the #2 country. How many more guns would make a difference?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
brightball 5y ago
It only takes one where the act is happening to put the shooter on defense and stop the massacre immediately.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Easier said than done. You really expect someone to be that rational when they were already stressed enough to use their firearm in the first place?
  - brightball 5y ago
    Who, the shooter or the person shooting back? I don't expect a shooter to be rational, but I do expect them to self preserve when being shot at. That's not rational, that's instinct. Police have repeatedly said ever since Columbine that it is most important to engage a shooter as soon as possible for this exact reason.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >that it is most important to engage a shooter as soon as possible for this exact reason. "Shooting your way out of an ambush" (i.e. taking initiative when attacked) has been tactical doctrine for literally every armed group, police, military, etc, for decades.

sudhirj 5y ago

I don't have the data, but because this idea I'm curious to know what the crime rates are per capita in countries that mandate military training for the entire population. I think Israeli people (both men and women) do mandatory military and combat training - does this translate to a decrease in domestic violence and shootings?