5 ms·

When it comes down to it the US has a fear driven culture, down to what essentially becomes paranoia. US violent crime statistics are at near all-time lows. Ye

When it comes down to it the US has a fear driven culture, down to what essentially becomes paranoia. US violent crime statistics are at near all-time lows. Yet I know many, many people that will not leave their house without at least one firearm. This is in small towns that haven't seen a violent crime justifying the use of deadly force in many years. Many of these same people refuse to "live in fear" of the coronavirus yet they live essentially petrified of violent crime to the point of carrying a deadly weapon for self-defense on their person at all times (not to mention the likely hundreds-thousands of rounds of ammunition and small arsenal they keep at home). We're terrified of a national ID "because big brother" yet almost no one cared or batted an eye at the Snowden revelations "because terrorism". 9/11 was 20 years ago and killed 3,000 people. Tragedy for sure but never before in human history has the trajectory and cultural makeup of a country (let alone a superpower) been so drastically altered by what is essentially a rounding error in terms of deaths in two decades. If warrantlessly surveilling an entire population isn't big government/brother I don't know what is. The ATF isn't allowed to have a searchable database because "the government is going to take away our guns" yet your entire life is accessible to the NSA. It's truly bizarre.

akira2501 5y ago
> yet they live essentially petrified of violent crime to the point of carrying a deadly weapon for self-defense on their person at all times That's an odd way of stating it. They're concerned, so they're arming themselves.. but continuing on with their lives. Sounds like the opposite of "petrified" to me.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  What's odd about saying it's completely innumerate to carry a gun on your person at all times? And don't for one second pretend Americans are "continuing on with their lives", what a joke; gun culture is huge in the US, people are absolutely obsessed with the things. Hardly a more obvious "not over it" situation exists than Americans and their guns.
- kkielhofner 5y ago
  They won't go places (businesses, cities, etc) that don't allow guns. They routinely talk about and consider scenarios when, where, and how they'd fire on someone. They select clothes based on what will conceal a firearm (or select the daily firearm make/model based on what can be concealed with their clothing that day). It's clearly a major driving force in their lives. Perhaps petrified wasn't the best use of words. I'll suggest terrified as an alternative but the actual reality is all the same. I've been kidnapped and robbed at gunpoint in the US. I'm pretty sure if I had a firearm that situation would have been worse. I would have either gotten myself killed or suffered the trauma of killing someone and watching them die. This isn't a movie where you go bang and the bad guy cleanly falls to the ground. Death by firearm is brutal and changes you forever (as my ex-military friends will tell you). Life isn't Hollywood and anyone who thinks their life will be the same and just fine after using that weapon is either a bona fide psychopath or delusional. I also can't imagine waking up everyday and strapping a gun to myself just to leave the house. I'd consider that fear winning and an event that I've long sense gotten over continuing to have an outsized amount of control and power over me. I got out of my traumatic event losing an iPhone and $100. After a few months of initial PTSD my life hasn't changed one bit. I won.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    I am not going to debate generic gun carry but I completely support being able to own and carry guns / rifles in the wilderness for example. It is pathetic when for example in Canada bear attacks construction crew, pulls a women and kills her and the others are not able to protect since they were not allowed to carry.
    - kkielhofner 5y ago
      Absolutely agree - I have no intention of debating guns generally (ownership or carry). I own guns, always have, and had a concealed carry permit for many years. However in my case the permit was more for practical reasons - I lived in an apartment and there are some weird grey areas with guns in "common areas" otherwise. I think I actually "concealed carried" a few times and was generally uncomfortable and put-off by it (personally). I'm more speaking to the motivation behind absolute, 100% carry everyday. It's completely emotional, fear driven, and not in any way supported/justified by the data.
warmwaffles 5y ago
> yet your entire life is accessible to the NSA. I'll bet you money that most Americans are not okay with this either.
- tombert 5y ago
  They're nominally "not ok" with it, unless it's couched in some piece of legislation like the PATRIOT Act or snuck into a Defense Authorization Act, particularly after a national tragedy happens. Then a lot (a majority?) of Americans will suddenly be ok with the "if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear" mantra. I'm actually not a huge fan when people act like Americans are a a bunch of flag-waving morons, because I think that people who say that are often being extremely reductive to a borderline-offensive level [1], but in this case I do think Americans are uniquely ok with pretending their rights don't exist when they're convinced it's for a greater good. [1] Disclosure, I'm American
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >" I do think Americans are uniquely ok with pretending their rights don't exist when they're convinced it's for a greater good." Check Canada. We are way more screwed up in this department
  - warmwaffles 5y ago
    > "if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear" mantra. I know people like this and it's not a good mantra to follow. I have to remind them that all that needs to happen is to have political winds go the other direction and soon something they do regularly becomes illegal or suspicious. So dumb to give up privacy for safety.
    - tombert 5y ago
      That's always been my perspective. I'm going to take the radical position that not everyone in the government can be trusted, so we have to assume that there are bad actors who are going to abuse their power and use the questionably-obtained information to their advantage. I'm not a fan of that, and the only way I can think of to avoid this being an issue is for them not to have the information in the first place.
booleandilemma 5y ago
The NSA acting like a creepy Big Brother-secret police organization is a separate issue.
- kkielhofner 5y ago
  It's an example of American schizophrenia. No National ID because tyranny! Monitoring everyone constantly? That's keeping us safe!
  - FpUser 5y ago
    Well I consider for example requirement to carry ID in France as the schizophrenia or worse from the government side. Brings out the worst associations
    - kkielhofner 5y ago
      In the United States you are pretty much required to give your name to police if they ask for it. They will run that name and if it's doesn't check out, match the picture on their computer, etc you will be arrested for providing a false name. In many states they can also demand you present photo identification and skip all of that. Practically speaking the United States has been a "papers please" country for a long time. What we're talking about here is a standardized, national ID. It's currently a weird patchwork of driver's licenses, identification cards, etc - each of which are slightly different variants issued by each of the states. So we don't have a standardized national ID. We have at least 50 of them, all with different formats, different issuing criteria, different validity, etc. We've tried to have some bare minim standards for years (REAL ID act) but the mandatory compliance date for that keeps getting pushed (currently next year).
      - FpUser 5y ago
        >"In the United States you are pretty much required to give your name to police if they ask for it. They will run that name and if it's doesn't check out, match the picture on their computer, etc you will be arrested for providing a false name. In many states they can also demand you present photo identification and skip all of that." Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in these states
rank0 5y ago
I know you're just sharing your anecdote, but the vast majority (over 80%) of Americans live in urban areas. Many cities do in fact see violent crime. Although I don't own a firearm myself, I totally understand why someone else would want one in my neighborhood. Violent crime is not unusual where I live. Don't let your bubble from small town USA distort your view of the entire country.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  It's disingenuous as hell to clump "cities" together, as if going to Anacostia in DC is the same as going to Georgetown. If you live in a city and carry a gun, you're not protecting yourself, you're escalating the violence. Getting robbed is exceedingly rare anywhere in the US, and trying to stop a robbery with a gun is among the stupidest things a person can do. Further, robbing someone doesn't mean you should die, and killing someone over property is evil beyond comprehension. No society should support it, and very few do (nearly nowhere in the US, for example).
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    I think most people not from DC will not even know where Anacostia is, you can probably just say SE or something.
  - rank0 5y ago
    > It's disingenuous as hell to clump "cities" together, as if going to Anacostia in DC is the same as going to Georgetown. I don't understand what you're arguing. Cities unequivocally see more crime than rural areas, even in nicer areas within a city (which may only be 1 mile from the "bad parts"). > Getting robbed is exceedingly rare anywhere in the US, and trying to stop a robbery with a gun is among the stupidest things a person can do. > Further, robbing someone doesn't mean you should die, and killing someone over property is evil beyond comprehension. No society should support it, and very few do (nearly nowhere in the US, for example). 1. Not everywhere is the same. Just because you feel comfortable in your bubble doesn't mean that owning a firearm is a ridiculous proposition for all. In my past 10 years of living in Atlanta, I've witnessed or been a victim of enough crime to fully understand why some folks here choose to own a gun. 2. The second part is totally ridiculous. Nobody is arguing that all thieves should die.

akira2501 5y ago

> yet they live essentially petrified of violent crime to the point of carrying a deadly weapon for self-defense on their person at all times That's an odd way of stating it. They're concerned, so they're arming themselves.. but continuing on with their lives. Sounds like the opposite of "petrified" to me.

TameAntelope 5y ago
What's odd about saying it's completely innumerate to carry a gun on your person at all times? And don't for one second pretend Americans are "continuing on with their lives", what a joke; gun culture is huge in the US, people are absolutely obsessed with the things. Hardly a more obvious "not over it" situation exists than Americans and their guns.
kkielhofner 5y ago
They won't go places (businesses, cities, etc) that don't allow guns. They routinely talk about and consider scenarios when, where, and how they'd fire on someone. They select clothes based on what will conceal a firearm (or select the daily firearm make/model based on what can be concealed with their clothing that day). It's clearly a major driving force in their lives. Perhaps petrified wasn't the best use of words. I'll suggest terrified as an alternative but the actual reality is all the same. I've been kidnapped and robbed at gunpoint in the US. I'm pretty sure if I had a firearm that situation would have been worse. I would have either gotten myself killed or suffered the trauma of killing someone and watching them die. This isn't a movie where you go bang and the bad guy cleanly falls to the ground. Death by firearm is brutal and changes you forever (as my ex-military friends will tell you). Life isn't Hollywood and anyone who thinks their life will be the same and just fine after using that weapon is either a bona fide psychopath or delusional. I also can't imagine waking up everyday and strapping a gun to myself just to leave the house. I'd consider that fear winning and an event that I've long sense gotten over continuing to have an outsized amount of control and power over me. I got out of my traumatic event losing an iPhone and $100. After a few months of initial PTSD my life hasn't changed one bit. I won.
- FpUser 5y ago
  I am not going to debate generic gun carry but I completely support being able to own and carry guns / rifles in the wilderness for example. It is pathetic when for example in Canada bear attacks construction crew, pulls a women and kills her and the others are not able to protect since they were not allowed to carry.
  - kkielhofner 5y ago
    Absolutely agree - I have no intention of debating guns generally (ownership or carry). I own guns, always have, and had a concealed carry permit for many years. However in my case the permit was more for practical reasons - I lived in an apartment and there are some weird grey areas with guns in "common areas" otherwise. I think I actually "concealed carried" a few times and was generally uncomfortable and put-off by it (personally). I'm more speaking to the motivation behind absolute, 100% carry everyday. It's completely emotional, fear driven, and not in any way supported/justified by the data.

warmwaffles 5y ago

> yet your entire life is accessible to the NSA. I'll bet you money that most Americans are not okay with this either.

tombert 5y ago
They're nominally "not ok" with it, unless it's couched in some piece of legislation like the PATRIOT Act or snuck into a Defense Authorization Act, particularly after a national tragedy happens. Then a lot (a majority?) of Americans will suddenly be ok with the "if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear" mantra. I'm actually not a huge fan when people act like Americans are a a bunch of flag-waving morons, because I think that people who say that are often being extremely reductive to a borderline-offensive level [1], but in this case I do think Americans are uniquely ok with pretending their rights don't exist when they're convinced it's for a greater good. [1] Disclosure, I'm American
- FpUser 5y ago
  >" I do think Americans are uniquely ok with pretending their rights don't exist when they're convinced it's for a greater good." Check Canada. We are way more screwed up in this department
- warmwaffles 5y ago
  > "if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear" mantra. I know people like this and it's not a good mantra to follow. I have to remind them that all that needs to happen is to have political winds go the other direction and soon something they do regularly becomes illegal or suspicious. So dumb to give up privacy for safety.
  - tombert 5y ago
    That's always been my perspective. I'm going to take the radical position that not everyone in the government can be trusted, so we have to assume that there are bad actors who are going to abuse their power and use the questionably-obtained information to their advantage. I'm not a fan of that, and the only way I can think of to avoid this being an issue is for them not to have the information in the first place.

booleandilemma 5y ago

The NSA acting like a creepy Big Brother-secret police organization is a separate issue.

kkielhofner 5y ago
It's an example of American schizophrenia. No National ID because tyranny! Monitoring everyone constantly? That's keeping us safe!
- FpUser 5y ago
  Well I consider for example requirement to carry ID in France as the schizophrenia or worse from the government side. Brings out the worst associations
  - kkielhofner 5y ago
    In the United States you are pretty much required to give your name to police if they ask for it. They will run that name and if it's doesn't check out, match the picture on their computer, etc you will be arrested for providing a false name. In many states they can also demand you present photo identification and skip all of that. Practically speaking the United States has been a "papers please" country for a long time. What we're talking about here is a standardized, national ID. It's currently a weird patchwork of driver's licenses, identification cards, etc - each of which are slightly different variants issued by each of the states. So we don't have a standardized national ID. We have at least 50 of them, all with different formats, different issuing criteria, different validity, etc. We've tried to have some bare minim standards for years (REAL ID act) but the mandatory compliance date for that keeps getting pushed (currently next year).
    - FpUser 5y ago
      >"In the United States you are pretty much required to give your name to police if they ask for it. They will run that name and if it's doesn't check out, match the picture on their computer, etc you will be arrested for providing a false name. In many states they can also demand you present photo identification and skip all of that." Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in these states

rank0 5y ago

I know you're just sharing your anecdote, but the vast majority (over 80%) of Americans live in urban areas. Many cities do in fact see violent crime. Although I don't own a firearm myself, I totally understand why someone else would want one in my neighborhood. Violent crime is not unusual where I live. Don't let your bubble from small town USA distort your view of the entire country.

TameAntelope 5y ago
It's disingenuous as hell to clump "cities" together, as if going to Anacostia in DC is the same as going to Georgetown. If you live in a city and carry a gun, you're not protecting yourself, you're escalating the violence. Getting robbed is exceedingly rare anywhere in the US, and trying to stop a robbery with a gun is among the stupidest things a person can do. Further, robbing someone doesn't mean you should die, and killing someone over property is evil beyond comprehension. No society should support it, and very few do (nearly nowhere in the US, for example).
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I think most people not from DC will not even know where Anacostia is, you can probably just say SE or something.
- rank0 5y ago
  > It's disingenuous as hell to clump "cities" together, as if going to Anacostia in DC is the same as going to Georgetown. I don't understand what you're arguing. Cities unequivocally see more crime than rural areas, even in nicer areas within a city (which may only be 1 mile from the "bad parts"). > Getting robbed is exceedingly rare anywhere in the US, and trying to stop a robbery with a gun is among the stupidest things a person can do. > Further, robbing someone doesn't mean you should die, and killing someone over property is evil beyond comprehension. No society should support it, and very few do (nearly nowhere in the US, for example). 1. Not everywhere is the same. Just because you feel comfortable in your bubble doesn't mean that owning a firearm is a ridiculous proposition for all. In my past 10 years of living in Atlanta, I've witnessed or been a victim of enough crime to fully understand why some folks here choose to own a gun. 2. The second part is totally ridiculous. Nobody is arguing that all thieves should die.