4 ms·

> People with a criminal history who go back to a life of crime just get a gun through their criminal organization the same way they get the illegal drugs they'

by forty 5y ago

> People with a criminal history who go back to a life of crime just get a gun through their criminal organization the same way they get the illegal drugs they're dealing. just because they can have weapons somehow is not a reason to make it very easy and legal. > people with a criminal history who reform themselves will commonly also carry a gun, for self-defense against criminals from their past life. Firearm are not defense tools. If someone shoot you, I don't see how it will save your life or protect you. > Banning possession of a technology is weak. If you wrongfully shoot someone, you should go to prison. If you have a gun and don't harm anyone with it, no one should have a problem with that. I live in a country that ban guns, and I'm not aware of a reason why it would affect anyone's life negatively. There are certainly less death by firearm though.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> just because they can have weapons somehow is not a reason to make it very easy and legal. Laws have costs and benefits. When the benefits are not actually realized in practice, that's relevant. > Firearm are not defense tools. If someone shoot you, I don't see how it will save your life or protect you. If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them first, this is more likely to lead to your survival than if you just let them kill you. And if this is more likely to happen, they are more likely to not attempt to kill you at risk to their own life. This is especially relevant for people in bad neighborhoods where the police can't be expected to do this job or provide an effective deterrent, and many of the victims are people who have a criminal history. An obvious and common case being where you get caught committing a crime, are pressured into testifying against someone else to avoid going to prison for ten years instead of one, and then you get out of prison and they or their people are after you. > I live in a country that ban guns, and I'm not aware of a reason why it would affect anyone's life negatively. There are certainly less death by firearm though. Ban red cars and there may be fewer accidents involving red cars, but is that really the right metric? Firearms are aggressively prohibited in Mexico and they have an even bigger homicide problem than the US. There is a high rate of firearms ownership in Canada, and they don't. The reason for this difference is where we should direct our attention.
- forty 5y ago
  > I live in a country that ban guns, and I'm not aware of a reason why it would affect anyone's life negatively. I notice you haven't answered that part :)
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    In a country with a low violent crime rate, banning guns has no benefits, because you have a low violent crime rate. All you're doing is inconveniencing honest people using them for recreation or as a bulwark against prospective future government failure. In a country with a high violent crime rate, victims need weapons for self defense. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
- forty 5y ago
  > If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them first, this is more likely to lead to your survival than if you just let them kill you. And if this is more likely to happen, they are more likely to not attempt to kill you at risk to their own life. Maybe there is a gentleman rule among firearm owners to let the other side the opportunity to shoot first, but there is always the risk of someone not following that rule.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    They can try to shoot first. That doesn't mean they always will, or that their first shot won't miss. Or that you won't still manage to shoot them even if they hit you first, the risk of which acts as a deterrent.
    - forty 5y ago
      I guess criminals in your country use nice low damage weapons, in that case I guess it works. In my country they seem to use some kind of automatic weapons, where the odds of really missing is low :) (I have seen some cars destroyed by such weapons, I'm not sure high precision is needed to be effective ^^)

by forty 5y ago

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> just because they can have weapons somehow is not a reason to make it very easy and legal. Laws have costs and benefits. When the benefits are not actually realized in practice, that's relevant. > Firearm are not defense tools. If someone shoot you, I don't see how it will save your life or protect you. If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them first, this is more likely to lead to your survival than if you just let them kill you. And if this is more likely to happen, they are more likely to not attempt to kill you at risk to their own life. This is especially relevant for people in bad neighborhoods where the police can't be expected to do this job or provide an effective deterrent, and many of the victims are people who have a criminal history. An obvious and common case being where you get caught committing a crime, are pressured into testifying against someone else to avoid going to prison for ten years instead of one, and then you get out of prison and they or their people are after you. > I live in a country that ban guns, and I'm not aware of a reason why it would affect anyone's life negatively. There are certainly less death by firearm though. Ban red cars and there may be fewer accidents involving red cars, but is that really the right metric? Firearms are aggressively prohibited in Mexico and they have an even bigger homicide problem than the US. There is a high rate of firearms ownership in Canada, and they don't. The reason for this difference is where we should direct our attention.

forty 5y ago
> I live in a country that ban guns, and I'm not aware of a reason why it would affect anyone's life negatively. I notice you haven't answered that part :)
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  In a country with a low violent crime rate, banning guns has no benefits, because you have a low violent crime rate. All you're doing is inconveniencing honest people using them for recreation or as a bulwark against prospective future government failure. In a country with a high violent crime rate, victims need weapons for self defense. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
forty 5y ago
> If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them first, this is more likely to lead to your survival than if you just let them kill you. And if this is more likely to happen, they are more likely to not attempt to kill you at risk to their own life. Maybe there is a gentleman rule among firearm owners to let the other side the opportunity to shoot first, but there is always the risk of someone not following that rule.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  They can try to shoot first. That doesn't mean they always will, or that their first shot won't miss. Or that you won't still manage to shoot them even if they hit you first, the risk of which acts as a deterrent.
  - forty 5y ago
    I guess criminals in your country use nice low damage weapons, in that case I guess it works. In my country they seem to use some kind of automatic weapons, where the odds of really missing is low :) (I have seen some cars destroyed by such weapons, I'm not sure high precision is needed to be effective ^^)