4 ms·

> [D]on't most people want it to be exactly that way? The people who are not having police encounters with any regularity, who aren't drawn on when they do get

> [D]on't most people want it to be exactly that way? The people who are not having police encounters with any regularity, who aren't drawn on when they do get pulled over, who perhaps have property or other reasons to be invested in the status quo, often want things this way. The people on the wrong side of the gun feel differently. Giving cops lethal power does not create safety. It shifts around what the danger is and who is in danger.

coliveira 5y ago
American society created this situation because of its obtuse laws, which give anyone the power to carry guns. In this scenario, police is also forced to have guns and to assume that anyone can have a gun. It is a spiral to hell.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I agree 100%. As someone who owns guns, I don't want to have them taken away. But I don't want criminals to have them. Personally I would give up mine if everyone else did, including the police, but that isn't going to happen. And at this point there are so many guns in the US that I'm not sure what a realistic solution is. Even if we could get past the politics, mass confiscation would probably be ineffective (to make it work would require the use of significantly more force than US citizens will accept and far more police than we have, or near universal compliance).
  - craftinator 5y ago
    The hard thing about making guns illegal is that criminals will still have them...
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      This cliché bugs me, because it is repeated so much, and it is generic - you can say "if you make X illegal, only criminals will have X" about anything and it's just as obtuse. Making something illegal for law abiding citizens is the point! When someone (either in authority or anyone) sees a person with X, and it's legal, then they don't know if it's a criminal or not without further investigation. When they see a person with X, and it's illegal, then they do know it's a criminal. This is an enormous advantage to enforcement, if that is the goal. Obviously you can, and many people do, make arguments based on crime statistics that outlawing guns works, but I prefer a logical approach.
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        It isn't obtuse. Maybe you could try making your argument in a less inflammatory way, and those with a different view from yours could see if there's a way to understand one another?
        perl4ever 5y ago
        You seem to be objecting to both the tone and the actual meaning of the word. Since I stand by the meaning, perhaps there is a better way to express it. But if you still disagree with the meaning, perhaps you could elaborate. A phrase I've seen on HN is "thought terminating cliché". Would that be a better way to express my opinion, by calling it that?
        torstenvl 5y ago
        You are interpreting the phrase specifically in a way as to make it a tautology, rather than responding to the "strongest plausible interpretation" as required by the site guidelines. Currently both anti-social and pro-social individuals possess firearms. If possession of firearms is criminalized, those who tend toward pro-sociality will give them up disproportionately. Such a policy would therefore tilt the balance of power toward those with anti-social inclinations. This is a bad outcome.
        perl4ever 5y ago
        I didn't mean to express that the outcome was good or bad. And I don't take a position on whether the authorities are grouped with the "anti-social" crowd. Some people would say they are. Purely for the sake of discussion, I presumed the conceit that there is a "justice system" which is "pro-social". In that context, it seems clear to me that criminalizing things is a very useful tool. If you reject the premise, you might be perfectly correct, yet I would still expect people to be addressing those who believe there is a "justice system". Surely all sensible anarchists can imagine believing in "law and order", and assume that a random person probably does? Even if one doesn't believe there is a justice system, one might believe there could be. I automatically assume anyone who wants to discuss topics like crime and justice believes in the concepts. The judgement "obtuse" comes with the sense I have that the context is otherwise violated.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    I have no idea how things really work in e.g. Switzerland or Israel, but one can imagine a stylized regime where every healthy adult undergoes military training, serves for a period of time, learns to use a rifle which they keep, and all other guns are heavily restricted or outlawed, especially handguns. And the rest of the military can be dispensed with. And then, stringent training can be mandated for drivers too! Just make simulators of the quality used for pilot training and require people to pass difficult tests where they react to unexpected events while driving.
rootusrootus 5y ago
I do not disagree with you, and I don't see that you disagree with me. The majority of people prefer the status quo. That strikes me as a tautology. We're up to something like 1/3 of the population having some kind of criminal record, though, so the balance could tip in the coming years. The culture wars we are experiencing right now may be a manifestation of that.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > The majority of people prefer the status quo. That strikes me as a tautology. That is definitely not a tautology. It is common that the majority of people views the status quo as undesirable.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Maybe there are two different concepts of "prefer". The status quo is likely to always be some sort of local maxima/minima. So most people may prefer it to most available small changes, but most people may prefer a large change if there was a way to get there in a coordinated way.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      > The status quo is likely to always be some sort of local maxima/minima. No, that's still not true.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        If people can make small changes independently to get to a better state, what accounts for them not doing so? I can't believe it if I can't imagine it, and if you think it's possible, you should share how. I think this is a dispute over semantics. It's not very productive to argue whether something is true or false when people define terms differently. Better to explain how you define them.
- maxbond 5y ago
  I disagree with you that it is a majority (perhaps a slim one but I doubt it), or that that would be meaningful. The reality we are discussing is, indeed, a grim one.

coliveira 5y ago

American society created this situation because of its obtuse laws, which give anyone the power to carry guns. In this scenario, police is also forced to have guns and to assume that anyone can have a gun. It is a spiral to hell.

rootusrootus 5y ago
I agree 100%. As someone who owns guns, I don't want to have them taken away. But I don't want criminals to have them. Personally I would give up mine if everyone else did, including the police, but that isn't going to happen. And at this point there are so many guns in the US that I'm not sure what a realistic solution is. Even if we could get past the politics, mass confiscation would probably be ineffective (to make it work would require the use of significantly more force than US citizens will accept and far more police than we have, or near universal compliance).
- craftinator 5y ago
  The hard thing about making guns illegal is that criminals will still have them...
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    This cliché bugs me, because it is repeated so much, and it is generic - you can say "if you make X illegal, only criminals will have X" about anything and it's just as obtuse. Making something illegal for law abiding citizens is the point! When someone (either in authority or anyone) sees a person with X, and it's legal, then they don't know if it's a criminal or not without further investigation. When they see a person with X, and it's illegal, then they do know it's a criminal. This is an enormous advantage to enforcement, if that is the goal. Obviously you can, and many people do, make arguments based on crime statistics that outlawing guns works, but I prefer a logical approach.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      It isn't obtuse. Maybe you could try making your argument in a less inflammatory way, and those with a different view from yours could see if there's a way to understand one another?
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        You seem to be objecting to both the tone and the actual meaning of the word. Since I stand by the meaning, perhaps there is a better way to express it. But if you still disagree with the meaning, perhaps you could elaborate. A phrase I've seen on HN is "thought terminating cliché". Would that be a better way to express my opinion, by calling it that?
        torstenvl 5y ago
        You are interpreting the phrase specifically in a way as to make it a tautology, rather than responding to the "strongest plausible interpretation" as required by the site guidelines. Currently both anti-social and pro-social individuals possess firearms. If possession of firearms is criminalized, those who tend toward pro-sociality will give them up disproportionately. Such a policy would therefore tilt the balance of power toward those with anti-social inclinations. This is a bad outcome.
        perl4ever 5y ago
        I didn't mean to express that the outcome was good or bad. And I don't take a position on whether the authorities are grouped with the "anti-social" crowd. Some people would say they are. Purely for the sake of discussion, I presumed the conceit that there is a "justice system" which is "pro-social". In that context, it seems clear to me that criminalizing things is a very useful tool. If you reject the premise, you might be perfectly correct, yet I would still expect people to be addressing those who believe there is a "justice system". Surely all sensible anarchists can imagine believing in "law and order", and assume that a random person probably does? Even if one doesn't believe there is a justice system, one might believe there could be. I automatically assume anyone who wants to discuss topics like crime and justice believes in the concepts. The judgement "obtuse" comes with the sense I have that the context is otherwise violated.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I have no idea how things really work in e.g. Switzerland or Israel, but one can imagine a stylized regime where every healthy adult undergoes military training, serves for a period of time, learns to use a rifle which they keep, and all other guns are heavily restricted or outlawed, especially handguns. And the rest of the military can be dispensed with. And then, stringent training can be mandated for drivers too! Just make simulators of the quality used for pilot training and require people to pass difficult tests where they react to unexpected events while driving.

rootusrootus 5y ago

I do not disagree with you, and I don't see that you disagree with me. The majority of people prefer the status quo. That strikes me as a tautology. We're up to something like 1/3 of the population having some kind of criminal record, though, so the balance could tip in the coming years. The culture wars we are experiencing right now may be a manifestation of that.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> The majority of people prefer the status quo. That strikes me as a tautology. That is definitely not a tautology. It is common that the majority of people views the status quo as undesirable.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  Maybe there are two different concepts of "prefer". The status quo is likely to always be some sort of local maxima/minima. So most people may prefer it to most available small changes, but most people may prefer a large change if there was a way to get there in a coordinated way.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > The status quo is likely to always be some sort of local maxima/minima. No, that's still not true.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      If people can make small changes independently to get to a better state, what accounts for them not doing so? I can't believe it if I can't imagine it, and if you think it's possible, you should share how. I think this is a dispute over semantics. It's not very productive to argue whether something is true or false when people define terms differently. Better to explain how you define them.
maxbond 5y ago
I disagree with you that it is a majority (perhaps a slim one but I doubt it), or that that would be meaningful. The reality we are discussing is, indeed, a grim one.