4 ms·

> The problem is guns. No, the problem is guns in the possession of people who can't use them responsibly. Guns aren't magic. They don't take over a person's m

by pdonis 4y ago

> The problem is guns. No, the problem is guns in the possession of people who can't use them responsibly. Guns aren't magic. They don't take over a person's mind and make them shoot other people. The people who misuse guns would misuse any other weapon you gave them. Or even things that you might not think of as weapons. But the vast majority of gun owners are not such people; they are responsible law-abiding citizens. So any policy about guns, at least in the US where we have the Second Amendment as part of our Constitution, has to be based on letting responsible, law-abiding citizens have guns. Otherwise you are punishing responsible, law-abiding citizens for the misdeeds of a very small number of people who are not responsible or law-abiding. That's not a good idea.

mahastore 4y ago
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Dont care. Its a small punishment for a greater good. This sort of attitude is a big reason why US politics is polarized around this issue. So let me try to adjust your "small punishment for a greater good" attitude a bit. Guns are self-defense weapons. They are particularly useful as equalizers: a little old lady who can shoot can defend herself against a mugger much larger than her in a way she couldn't possibly do by any other means. So any government that proposes to take away people's guns "for a greater good" has an absolute obligation to extirpate any kind of violent crime that might cause a person to need a gun for self-defense. I mean "extirpate" literally: zero violent crime. Or at least so close to it as to be rounding error. But of course no government on Earth ever has or ever can achieve that level of control over violent crime, at least not in a free country. Perhaps China could do it, though even there I doubt it: China has criminal gangs. So given that the government can't possibly make it truly unnecessary for any law-abiding citizen to need a gun, if the government still insists on taking away people's guns "for a greater good", the government is taking the attitude that, as long as the politicians who live in gated communities and have personal protective details can have their bodyguards have guns so they aren't victims of violent crime, they don't care that the people they're supposed to be representing are victims of violent crime and can't defend themselves. And that is not an acceptable attitude for the government of a free country.
  - mahastore 4y ago
    - pdonis 4y ago
      When you advocate for punishing law-abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals, you should question whether you are really acting for the greater good.
      - dmux 4y ago
        >When you advocate for punishing law-abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals I don't think you're arguing in good-faith here. The Misdeeds of criminals? It's not like mass shootings are carried out by felons. They're carried out by mentally ill people that have access to guns they should not have access to. They're not criminals until they take action.
        pdonis 4y ago
        > I don't think you're arguing in good-faith here. I could say the same about you, but I'll just leave it that I don't think you have thought through your position. > They're not criminals until they take action. And nobody calls for banning guns until they take action either. At which point, as you say, they are criminals. So the calls for banning guns every time there's a mass shooting are exactly what I said: calls to punish law-abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals.
        mahastore 4y ago
  - dmux 4y ago
    >Guns are self-defense weapons. They are particularly useful as equalizers: a little old lady who can shoot can defend herself against a mugger much larger than her in a way she couldn't possibly do by any other means. Ah yes, the classic example of little old ladies defending themselves. This is pretty much a "think of the children" trope.
dmux 4y ago
> No, the problem is guns in the possession of people who can't use them responsibly. The problem is that guns are so readily available that even those that cannot use them responsibly can still get their hands on them. Three of the four guns used in Columbine weren't even purchased by the killers but by a fellow school mate who had turned 18 and could buy them for the killers. Similarly, with the Sandyhook shooting -- it wasn't even the shooter's gun that was used.
- pdonis 4y ago
  Your examples are not arguments for restricting gun ownership per se. They are arguments for holding people responsible for giving guns to irresponsible people. In the Columbine case, was the school mate prosecuted for, at the very least, negligently contributing to homicide? With the Sandy Hook shooting, was the owner of the gun prosecuted for allowing the shooter to have it?
  - dmux 4y ago
    I don't see how holding the third parties responsible would prevent the acts themselves. That's a retroactive measure. Reducing the availability of guns is proactive. >With the Sandy Hook shooting, was the owner of the gun prosecuted for allowing the shooter to have it? No, because she was the first person killed by the very weapon.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > I don't see how holding the third parties responsible would prevent the acts themselves. You don't see how, if people know they are legally responsible for what guns they own are used for if they give them to someone else, they would be more careful about who they give them to? Obviously prosecuting someone after the fact is retroactive for that particular act. But that in no way means it does not send a signal to other people to proactively change their behavior. That is how most law enforcement has its effect. And it has the advantage of putting the responsibility where it belongs; whereas if you take away everyone's guns because a few people can't use them responsibly, or can't be bothered to be careful about who they give them to, you are punishing the wrong people.
burntbridge 4y ago
But the U.S. accepts other things that are regulated, a couple of examples: Speed limits: Speed doesn't cause accidents just people who go faster than their ability to control the vehicle. Many people are sensible and wouldn't do this. Drugs: Many people can take drugs and enjoy them and not descend into anti-social and criminal behavior.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > the U.S. accepts other things that are regulated Sure, and if "regulated" means a person has to show some proof of being a responsible citizen, that's fine.

by pdonis 4y ago

mahastore 4y ago

pdonis 4y ago
> Dont care. Its a small punishment for a greater good. This sort of attitude is a big reason why US politics is polarized around this issue. So let me try to adjust your "small punishment for a greater good" attitude a bit. Guns are self-defense weapons. They are particularly useful as equalizers: a little old lady who can shoot can defend herself against a mugger much larger than her in a way she couldn't possibly do by any other means. So any government that proposes to take away people's guns "for a greater good" has an absolute obligation to extirpate any kind of violent crime that might cause a person to need a gun for self-defense. I mean "extirpate" literally: zero violent crime. Or at least so close to it as to be rounding error. But of course no government on Earth ever has or ever can achieve that level of control over violent crime, at least not in a free country. Perhaps China could do it, though even there I doubt it: China has criminal gangs. So given that the government can't possibly make it truly unnecessary for any law-abiding citizen to need a gun, if the government still insists on taking away people's guns "for a greater good", the government is taking the attitude that, as long as the politicians who live in gated communities and have personal protective details can have their bodyguards have guns so they aren't victims of violent crime, they don't care that the people they're supposed to be representing are victims of violent crime and can't defend themselves. And that is not an acceptable attitude for the government of a free country.
- mahastore 4y ago
  - pdonis 4y ago
    When you advocate for punishing law-abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals, you should question whether you are really acting for the greater good.
    - dmux 4y ago
      >When you advocate for punishing law-abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals I don't think you're arguing in good-faith here. The Misdeeds of criminals? It's not like mass shootings are carried out by felons. They're carried out by mentally ill people that have access to guns they should not have access to. They're not criminals until they take action.
      - pdonis 4y ago
        > I don't think you're arguing in good-faith here. I could say the same about you, but I'll just leave it that I don't think you have thought through your position. > They're not criminals until they take action. And nobody calls for banning guns until they take action either. At which point, as you say, they are criminals. So the calls for banning guns every time there's a mass shooting are exactly what I said: calls to punish law-abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals.
        mahastore 4y ago
- dmux 4y ago
  >Guns are self-defense weapons. They are particularly useful as equalizers: a little old lady who can shoot can defend herself against a mugger much larger than her in a way she couldn't possibly do by any other means. Ah yes, the classic example of little old ladies defending themselves. This is pretty much a "think of the children" trope.

dmux 4y ago

> No, the problem is guns in the possession of people who can't use them responsibly. The problem is that guns are so readily available that even those that cannot use them responsibly can still get their hands on them. Three of the four guns used in Columbine weren't even purchased by the killers but by a fellow school mate who had turned 18 and could buy them for the killers. Similarly, with the Sandyhook shooting -- it wasn't even the shooter's gun that was used.

pdonis 4y ago
Your examples are not arguments for restricting gun ownership per se. They are arguments for holding people responsible for giving guns to irresponsible people. In the Columbine case, was the school mate prosecuted for, at the very least, negligently contributing to homicide? With the Sandy Hook shooting, was the owner of the gun prosecuted for allowing the shooter to have it?
- dmux 4y ago
  I don't see how holding the third parties responsible would prevent the acts themselves. That's a retroactive measure. Reducing the availability of guns is proactive. >With the Sandy Hook shooting, was the owner of the gun prosecuted for allowing the shooter to have it? No, because she was the first person killed by the very weapon.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > I don't see how holding the third parties responsible would prevent the acts themselves. You don't see how, if people know they are legally responsible for what guns they own are used for if they give them to someone else, they would be more careful about who they give them to? Obviously prosecuting someone after the fact is retroactive for that particular act. But that in no way means it does not send a signal to other people to proactively change their behavior. That is how most law enforcement has its effect. And it has the advantage of putting the responsibility where it belongs; whereas if you take away everyone's guns because a few people can't use them responsibly, or can't be bothered to be careful about who they give them to, you are punishing the wrong people.

burntbridge 4y ago

But the U.S. accepts other things that are regulated, a couple of examples: Speed limits: Speed doesn't cause accidents just people who go faster than their ability to control the vehicle. Many people are sensible and wouldn't do this. Drugs: Many people can take drugs and enjoy them and not descend into anti-social and criminal behavior.

pdonis 4y ago
> the U.S. accepts other things that are regulated Sure, and if "regulated" means a person has to show some proof of being a responsible citizen, that's fine.