4 ms·

Ah, the grandmother with a gun argument. However there is not conclusive evidence that owning a gun makes you safer. If anything, widespread gun ownership makes

by altacc 4y ago

Ah, the grandmother with a gun argument. However there is not conclusive evidence that owning a gun makes you safer. If anything, widespread gun ownership makes you less safe from crime, accidental death and suicide. In almost all other western countries the notion of needing a gun to feel safe is totally alien. The context in which the American gun debate happens is rather unique and the real discussion should be about how to change the context/environment, not just banning guns.

devwastaken 4y ago
You're going to have to absolve yourself of popular narratives and 24/7 news if you want the truth. This isn't about grandmothers with guns, it's that there's a probability I meet someone on Grindr and they intend to harm me as fundamentalist people do. Or they stalk me and get a group to bash me. They don't need a gun to do that, but I need one to protect from it.
Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
The problem is that we've already had this "real discussion" and your side has decisively lost for more than 2/3rds of the population. The history goes from attempting to limit dueling, then disarming freedmen (black slaves after the Civil War), followed by new outside the Hajnal line immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, to extending the list of undesirables to the entire population except for the ruling class' Inner Circle like Dianne Feinstein who at one point held one of the only two concealed carry licenses issued by San Francisco county. See my reply in this subthread for one stark bottom line: on January 1st, 2023 in half the states of the nation (25 out of 50 for our foreign correspondents) you will not need a licence to carry a concealed handgun. (The number today is 22: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry). The "discussion" is at the margins, from weak sauce administrative fiat Federal regulations, to Purple or newly Blue states moving (more) anti-gun like Washington state, to the modern 8 slave states where legal concealed carry is non-existent or at the whim and/or bribery of local officials, and in Massachusetts and New York City that extends to mere ownership, and perhaps de facto New Jersey as well. Your side will have to agree to disagree as the nation geographically further polarizes or try to force this with a civil war. I vote for the former option.
- altacc 4y ago
  I don't have a "side" in this, that kind of division further drives the toxic narratives in US politics and sees the only options as based on force or a civil war. That shows either a lack of imagination or bad faith in seeking a solution. I live elsewhere and, like the majority of the world, this isn't even a debate, even in a country where about 25% of households have firearms but the availability and controls are strict and there's near zero expectation of being a victim of violent crime, let alone with firearm. Large swathes of the world have figured this out without the cataclysm that gun fantasists in the US claim would result. Lastly, the winning, or rather the currently prevailing, side of anything does not necessarily mean that it is correct. What's wrong in the US appears to be the culture and so the solution would be to try to change the culture (cultures naturally form and change gradually over time). Unfortunately the current direction is for people to become ever more entrenched, leaving the nuanced middle ground virtually empty.

by altacc 4y ago

devwastaken 4y ago

You're going to have to absolve yourself of popular narratives and 24/7 news if you want the truth. This isn't about grandmothers with guns, it's that there's a probability I meet someone on Grindr and they intend to harm me as fundamentalist people do. Or they stalk me and get a group to bash me. They don't need a gun to do that, but I need one to protect from it.

Throwawayaerlei 4y ago

The problem is that we've already had this "real discussion" and your side has decisively lost for more than 2/3rds of the population. The history goes from attempting to limit dueling, then disarming freedmen (black slaves after the Civil War), followed by new outside the Hajnal line immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, to extending the list of undesirables to the entire population except for the ruling class' Inner Circle like Dianne Feinstein who at one point held one of the only two concealed carry licenses issued by San Francisco county. See my reply in this subthread for one stark bottom line: on January 1st, 2023 in half the states of the nation (25 out of 50 for our foreign correspondents) you will not need a licence to carry a concealed handgun. (The number today is 22: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry). The "discussion" is at the margins, from weak sauce administrative fiat Federal regulations, to Purple or newly Blue states moving (more) anti-gun like Washington state, to the modern 8 slave states where legal concealed carry is non-existent or at the whim and/or bribery of local officials, and in Massachusetts and New York City that extends to mere ownership, and perhaps de facto New Jersey as well. Your side will have to agree to disagree as the nation geographically further polarizes or try to force this with a civil war. I vote for the former option.

altacc 4y ago
I don't have a "side" in this, that kind of division further drives the toxic narratives in US politics and sees the only options as based on force or a civil war. That shows either a lack of imagination or bad faith in seeking a solution. I live elsewhere and, like the majority of the world, this isn't even a debate, even in a country where about 25% of households have firearms but the availability and controls are strict and there's near zero expectation of being a victim of violent crime, let alone with firearm. Large swathes of the world have figured this out without the cataclysm that gun fantasists in the US claim would result. Lastly, the winning, or rather the currently prevailing, side of anything does not necessarily mean that it is correct. What's wrong in the US appears to be the culture and so the solution would be to try to change the culture (cultures naturally form and change gradually over time). Unfortunately the current direction is for people to become ever more entrenched, leaving the nuanced middle ground virtually empty.