5 ms·

> 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

by 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.
burntbridge 4y ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/ Guns in a home actually lead to greater dangers especially for women. Most people are actually murdered by someone they know, quite often a close relative of friend. It may not feel that way but you are actually safer not owning a gun.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > you are actually safer not owning a gun No, you are actually safer not having an irresponsible person in your home. If everyone in your home is a responsible person, you might well be safer owning a gun. At worst it will be neutral as far as your safety goes (if you live in an area that is safe anyway). The fact that irresponsible people will use guns to do irresponsible things is not a valid reason to blame the guns. The blame lies with the irresponsible people.
  - dmux 4y ago
    >No, you are actually safer not having an irresponsible person in your home. If everyone in your home is a responsible person... Gun violence solved: Just don't have an irresponsible person in your home. It's not like people have mental breakdowns or have an onset of a mental illness, right? Of course not, once responsible, always responsible.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > Gun violence solved: Just don't have an irresponsible person in your home. Doing that doesn't just "solve" gun violence. Focusing on the guns as though they're the root problem when irresponsible people are involved is like painting over the rust on your car and thinking it "solves" the problem. > once responsible, always responsible I made no such claim. Obviously the responsible/irresponsible judgment is not one you just make one time and then it never changes. Any reasonable person will understand that making such judgments is an ongoing process.
      - dmux 4y ago

by pdonis 4y ago

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.

burntbridge 4y ago

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/ Guns in a home actually lead to greater dangers especially for women. Most people are actually murdered by someone they know, quite often a close relative of friend. It may not feel that way but you are actually safer not owning a gun.

pdonis 4y ago
> you are actually safer not owning a gun No, you are actually safer not having an irresponsible person in your home. If everyone in your home is a responsible person, you might well be safer owning a gun. At worst it will be neutral as far as your safety goes (if you live in an area that is safe anyway). The fact that irresponsible people will use guns to do irresponsible things is not a valid reason to blame the guns. The blame lies with the irresponsible people.
- dmux 4y ago
  >No, you are actually safer not having an irresponsible person in your home. If everyone in your home is a responsible person... Gun violence solved: Just don't have an irresponsible person in your home. It's not like people have mental breakdowns or have an onset of a mental illness, right? Of course not, once responsible, always responsible.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > Gun violence solved: Just don't have an irresponsible person in your home. Doing that doesn't just "solve" gun violence. Focusing on the guns as though they're the root problem when irresponsible people are involved is like painting over the rust on your car and thinking it "solves" the problem. > once responsible, always responsible I made no such claim. Obviously the responsible/irresponsible judgment is not one you just make one time and then it never changes. Any reasonable person will understand that making such judgments is an ongoing process.
    - dmux 4y ago