9 ms·

What would the side effects of lower gun ownership be?

zmgsabst 4y ago
You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors. You displace guns primarily harming suicidal people and criminals into harms to innocent victims, via unchecked violence — potentially without reducing suicides. You also see an increase in totalitarian behavior, eg, the Australian lockdowns compared to the US lockdowns. And the argument for removing rifles ignores that they’re rarely used in crimes — more people are killed by hammers or fists than rifles. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
- seoaeu 4y ago
  > And the argument for removing rifles ignores that they’re rarely used in crimes — more people are killed by hammers or fists than rifles. Your own link shows that two thirds of homicides are committed using guns. That’s your only citation and hardly a compelling one to back up your claim that the US has a far lower crime rate thanks to all the guns
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Yes — and you see how that link is in support of rifles in particular, which are used less often than fists or hammers? You ignored what the text you quoted actually said.
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      No, I pointed out that the quoted text made an irrelevant distinction between different kinds of guns while the entire rest of the comment (and the ones it is replying to) are about guns in general
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        > That’s your only citation and hardly a compelling one to back up your claim that the US has a far lower crime rate thanks to all the guns We have your comment which dishonestly claims that link was related to the claim about crime rates — when it clearly wasn’t. The distinction is meaningful because gun restrictions tend to target rifles, when they’re hardly used in crimes.
        seoaeu 4y ago
        > dishonestly claims that link was related to the claim about crime rates — when it clearly wasn’t. I’m sorry for assuming that the final sentence of the comment and only citation was related to the rest of it
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        I accept your apology for making a bad assumption that ignored the actual text of my post and which assumed bad faith on my part, since that link supported the nearby text which described data from that report.
        seoaeu 4y ago
        No, I assumed you were engaging in good faith when you mentioned rifles. Instead you were responding to strawman argument no one made about how banning rifles (but not pistols) wouldn’t work.
  - Auracle 4y ago
    Guns, not rifles. Most are committed using pistols.
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      Yes, but OP was claiming that banning pistols (and all other guns) wouldn’t help reduce crime, while citing the homicide data as proof
- gravelc 4y ago
  I didn't realise the the rate of muggings, assaults, home invasions etc. was higher in Australia and the United States. Sounds like a nightmare. /s
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Well, comparing the stats: The US seems to have higher murder, but less per capita crimes against people (eg, rape and burglary). https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/...
    - gravelc 4y ago
      I'm going to go out on a limb here and say those statistics are laughable. Have a look at the order of all countries: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Burglaries https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Burgla...
    - titaniczero 4y ago
      What about the european countries without "equalizers"? https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/Unit... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/Un... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/Un... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Italy/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Italy/Unit... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Uni... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Austria/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Austria/Un... > You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors. Sorry but to my european ears, this "equalizing force" theory sounds plain stupid. I get that it is not that easy to ban them because we have different traditions and background, and I get that it is really hard to ban something when people is used to it and that it could lead to unexpected consequences (black market, etc). But defending guns as an "equalizing force" is just stupid, given the stats.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  How often do people use guns to defend themselves against violent crime, and how often do people kill themselves or others with guns (accidentally or intentionally)?
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Defensive uses: 500,000-3,000,000 Suicides: 24,000 Murders: 14,000 - - - - - Defensive gun uses: https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/ https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g... Suicide and murder: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_S...
    - gbhn 4y ago
      There are roughly a million violent crimes a year. It is not credible there are 3x as many defensive uses of firearms that are somehow being missed. The page you reference indexes a few thousand over several years. Seems likely an undercount as the page claims but not by that much by probably a couple orders of magnitude.
      - epicureanideal 4y ago
        > There are roughly a million violent crimes a year Source? Seems low.
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        Those numbers are (roughly) in line with FBI statistics, from 500,000 to 1,500,000 depending on if you include assaults. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2 https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        Sure — I’m willing to believe a lower number; that was just what I found.
- codeyperson 4y ago
  > You also see an increase in totalitarian behavior, eg, the Australian lockdowns compared to the US lockdowns. Don't believe tabloid media. No it wasn't 'totalitarian'. I can't take you seriously now.
  - calvinmorrison 4y ago
    "Sir, please return to a two mile radius of your home for you own safety or else we will arrest and imprison you, for your safety"
    - pjerem 4y ago
      I don’t know which country you are talking about but I haven’t heard about prison sentences for not respecting lockdowns, only fines. At least in the EU. And while those laws were pretty stupidly implemented they were just the outcome of improvisation from unprepared governments, not some totalitarian vision. Even citizens from countries with a strong culture of disobedience understood that.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    I guess we disagree on “totalitarian” — or if the BBC is a “tabloid”. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59486285.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59486285.amp
    - yesenadam 4y ago
      I can't see "totalitarian" used on that page. I'm confused what your point is. The story is about 3 people escaping from "one of Australia's main quarantine facilities for people returning to the country" and being arrested when they were caught. That sounds like very unremarkable news to this Australian, but it seems that to some people it sounds like totally unacceptable totalitarianism, no idea why. Not the first time I've seen people post similar unremarkable "news" items on HN accompanied by extravagant claims that Australia is suddenly like the USSR or something.
      - 4y ago
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Just having a gun in your home increases your risk of being shot - virtually always either by your angry spouse, or yourself - by 50%. The idea that having a gun make you safer has no sound basis.
  - bagels 4y ago
    Surely there are confounding variables? For instance, if one does/does not have a criminal record, has/does not have a propensity for violence, or maybe most importantly does/does not have curious children in the house.
    - dncornholio 4y ago
      US reasoning is so weird. It's ALWAYS safer to have no gun than to have one? I'd even say that you have less chance to get shot unarmed than you do armed. Is there any data to back this up?
      - GiorgioG 4y ago
        I was born in the US to Italian immigrants - so I don't particularly feel it's just "US reasoning". We didn't live in the greatest neighborhood growing up (about 2-3 miles from where the Buffalo Tops grocery store shooting occurred.) My father had a .22 caliber rifle. One late night (2-3 am) when we were asleep the doorbell rang. My father answered the door with his rifle in hand. Two people claiming to be Buffalo Police Officers were "looking for a missing child" and wanted to come in to ask questions. My father felt something was amiss and didn't let them in. He subsequently called the police and they had no such report of a missing child in the area, nor any police officers going door to door at that hour of the night. In this case I feel it was safer to have a gun than no gun. You can't plan for such events, the best you can do is being prepared for it. There are consequences to gun ownership and consequences to not owning a gun. Ultimately it's the law of the land that allows you to make that choice for yourself. A defensive use of a firearm doesn't mean you actually need to fire the weapon. The mere presence of a gun can act as a deterrent.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
- Reason077 4y ago
  > “the argument for removing rifles ignores that they’re rarely used in crimes” But common in mass shootings. In the US, “semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings”: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in...
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Mass shootings aren’t common. Also, most “mass shootings” are by pistol by gangs — you’re citing a statistic on the largest ones, which are rare even among rare events. Generally, we shouldn’t base policy around outliers of outliers.
    - rswail 4y ago
      How about basing policy on not getting innocent children and adults mass murdered on a regular basis? They are outliers of outliers in other countries. In the US, it's once a week.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        > mass murdered on a regular basis? That doesn’t happen — it’s been four years since a similarly deadly shooting. > They are outliers of outliers in other countries. In the US, it's once a week. You forgot to exclude gang violence.
    - meheleventyone 4y ago
      Comedy gold. We shouldn’t base policy around outliers of outliers but we should have a policy of arming the populace in case they need to lead an insurrection which is itself an extreme outlier. Or the chance of needing a gun for self defence which is also quite the outlier particularly if you drill down into the actual risk factors rather than using broad statistics. So far this year more school kids have died from being shot in the line of duty than cops who are routinely armed. So it doesn’t strike me as that much of an outlier. In particular kids should definitely be safer from gun violence than a police officer. That seems like a reasonable goal? Or the fact that the incidence of school shootings means kids are more widely impacted than just those who end up on the wrong end of a gun.
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  Your first paragraph makes me realize how messed up reality appears to be. A mass shooting every now and then is the new normal. A worthy trade-off for being able to defend yourself and keep the government from issuing lockdowns. If someone broke into my house the default assumption has to be that they're armed and I should fear for me an my family's lives. So I better be armed myself, and better armed then the burglars. Just don't accidentally shoot a family member that you mistake for the home invader in the heat of the moment. But that would never happen to you anyways, only to other, stupid and irresponsible people - who pretty much then deserve to live with the consequences. Compare that to any European country, where burglars always wait until nobody is home, and even if that goes wrong you at least don't have to fear for anyone's life as they'll either beat it immediately or you calmly hand over your cash and be happy you're alive and well.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    This is an incredibly bad faith response which creates strawmen I never said. You’re welcome not to own a gun if you feel like that would be a better choice for you and/or your family. Nobody is making you. What I’m saying is that you don’t have a right to take guns away from other people because you find them scary — even if that is occasionally abused, leading to tragedy. People have a right to defend themselves. > A worthy trade-off for being able to defend yourself and keep the government from issuing lockdowns. Over 100,000,000 people died to democide in the past century — around 70 times the current US murder rate for 100 years. (That is, 7000 years of the current US murder-with-guns rate.) Guns also protected Black Panthers, Afghani insurrectionists, and Ukrainian militias. I’m sorry that the world isn’t as friendly and happy as you would prefer it — I find that disquieting too.
    - multjoy 4y ago
      Speaking of rights, what happened to "well regulated"? There seems a lot of interest in "Shall not be", but far less the further into the paragraph you go.
    - iforgotpassword 4y ago
      > which creates strawmen I never said. Yes you did, and you even repeat it in your reply. > You’re welcome not to own a gun if you feel like that would be a better choice for you and/or your family. Nobody is making you. Yes, they are pretty much making you in parts of the US, because things are so bad. > What I’m saying is that you don’t have a right to take guns away from other people because you find them scary. Not just because "I find them scary", but because they are literally dangerous. They are made to kill. That's their only purpose. And yes, you absolutely have the right to take them away from people - just like you have the right to declare certain substances illegal to sell, consume or own, and limit people's freedom in a dozen other ways for the sake of society's well being as a whole. > even if that is occasionally abused, leading to tragedy. So where's the straw man again? > People have a right to defend themselves. And we arrived at the knee jerk reaction. Taking the arms race as a given. Don't even question why things are that fucked up in the first place. Might have to fear for my life any time of the day, so better have a semi-automatic rifle at hand. It's just so very sad. > Over 100,000,000 people died to democide in the past century In the US? Or Europe? Or might it have been in some really unstable chaotic parts of the world? Why you would even want to compare this to a civilized first world country is beyond me. A more reasonable approach would be comparisons with countries that are socially and structurally similar to the US but have different gun control laws, but that comparison wouldn't really fly with your views I guess. > I’m sorry that the world isn’t as friendly and happy as you would prefer it — I find that disquieting too. It doesn't seem you want it to be.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Your argument is disingenuous. You say guns can be used by weaker people to defend themselves (not sure if you consider children weak), and the argue that rifles kill less people than hammers. Yes rifles, handguns on the other hand kill >30 times more (and there is a large unspecified firearm category which kills ~10 times more than hammers). So are you suggesting weaker woman should take a rifle to their date in case they need to defend themselves. The bigger issue is however that I'm very certain there are more events of a fun being used to attack a weaker person, than od a weaker person defendinf themselves with one.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    No, she should use a handgun. The rifle point was that while most murders are by handgun, most gun laws restrict rifles — which was a specific, second thing I was calling out. > The bigger issue is however that I'm very certain there are more events of a fun being used to attack a weaker person, than od a weaker person defendinf themselves with one. My point is that is more equal than when violence relies on knives and bats and fists.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors. So show us the statistics that crime rates in states with high gun ownership are lower.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    The relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates are (weakly) negative https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors. So by your argument crime should be lower in states with less gun control. That is not reflected in reality, in fact according to [1 ], the states with the highest crime rates have actually amongst the laxest gun control laws. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
  - coinbasetwwa 4y ago
    Correlation =/= causation
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      But lack of correlation is evidence that there’s no causation
- watwut 4y ago
  No, rapes would not go down if guns were removed. Guns don't prevent rapes and actual rape and domestic violence victims ended up in prison after trying to defend themselves with guns. It is simply not true that women, and the elderly would defend themselves with lethal force all that often, besides aggressors are the ones who are quicker at obtaining guns and using them.
  - CapricornNoble 4y ago
    >>>It is simply not true that women, and the elderly would defend themselves with lethal force all that often, How often is acceptably "often enough" for the disadvantaged to protect themselves? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/04/texas-woman-who-shot-an-alleged-purse-snatcher-says-her-gun-saved-her-life/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/04/texas-woman...
merek 4y ago
The King of England, Tony Blair, could start shoving you around.

You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors. You displace guns primarily harming suicidal people and criminals into harms to innocent victims, via unchecked violence — potentially without reducing suicides. You also see an increase in totalitarian behavior, eg, the Australian lockdowns compared to the US lockdowns. And the argument for removing rifles ignores that they’re rarely used in crimes — more people are killed by hammers or fists than rifles. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

seoaeu 4y ago
> And the argument for removing rifles ignores that they’re rarely used in crimes — more people are killed by hammers or fists than rifles. Your own link shows that two thirds of homicides are committed using guns. That’s your only citation and hardly a compelling one to back up your claim that the US has a far lower crime rate thanks to all the guns
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Yes — and you see how that link is in support of rifles in particular, which are used less often than fists or hammers? You ignored what the text you quoted actually said.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    No, I pointed out that the quoted text made an irrelevant distinction between different kinds of guns while the entire rest of the comment (and the ones it is replying to) are about guns in general
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      > That’s your only citation and hardly a compelling one to back up your claim that the US has a far lower crime rate thanks to all the guns We have your comment which dishonestly claims that link was related to the claim about crime rates — when it clearly wasn’t. The distinction is meaningful because gun restrictions tend to target rifles, when they’re hardly used in crimes.
      - seoaeu 4y ago
        > dishonestly claims that link was related to the claim about crime rates — when it clearly wasn’t. I’m sorry for assuming that the final sentence of the comment and only citation was related to the rest of it
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        I accept your apology for making a bad assumption that ignored the actual text of my post and which assumed bad faith on my part, since that link supported the nearby text which described data from that report.
        seoaeu 4y ago
        No, I assumed you were engaging in good faith when you mentioned rifles. Instead you were responding to strawman argument no one made about how banning rifles (but not pistols) wouldn’t work.
- Auracle 4y ago
  Guns, not rifles. Most are committed using pistols.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    Yes, but OP was claiming that banning pistols (and all other guns) wouldn’t help reduce crime, while citing the homicide data as proof
gravelc 4y ago
I didn't realise the the rate of muggings, assaults, home invasions etc. was higher in Australia and the United States. Sounds like a nightmare. /s
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Well, comparing the stats: The US seems to have higher murder, but less per capita crimes against people (eg, rape and burglary). https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/...
  - gravelc 4y ago
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say those statistics are laughable. Have a look at the order of all countries: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Burglaries https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Burgla...
  - titaniczero 4y ago
    What about the european countries without "equalizers"? https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/Unit... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/Un... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/Un... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Italy/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Italy/Unit... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Uni... https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Austria/United-States/Crime https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Austria/Un... > You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors. Sorry but to my european ears, this "equalizing force" theory sounds plain stupid. I get that it is not that easy to ban them because we have different traditions and background, and I get that it is really hard to ban something when people is used to it and that it could lead to unexpected consequences (black market, etc). But defending guns as an "equalizing force" is just stupid, given the stats.
tshaddox 4y ago
How often do people use guns to defend themselves against violent crime, and how often do people kill themselves or others with guns (accidentally or intentionally)?
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Defensive uses: 500,000-3,000,000 Suicides: 24,000 Murders: 14,000 - - - - - Defensive gun uses: https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/ https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g... Suicide and murder: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_S...
  - gbhn 4y ago
    There are roughly a million violent crimes a year. It is not credible there are 3x as many defensive uses of firearms that are somehow being missed. The page you reference indexes a few thousand over several years. Seems likely an undercount as the page claims but not by that much by probably a couple orders of magnitude.
    - epicureanideal 4y ago
      > There are roughly a million violent crimes a year Source? Seems low.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        Those numbers are (roughly) in line with FBI statistics, from 500,000 to 1,500,000 depending on if you include assaults. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2 https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      Sure — I’m willing to believe a lower number; that was just what I found.
codeyperson 4y ago
> You also see an increase in totalitarian behavior, eg, the Australian lockdowns compared to the US lockdowns. Don't believe tabloid media. No it wasn't 'totalitarian'. I can't take you seriously now.
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  "Sir, please return to a two mile radius of your home for you own safety or else we will arrest and imprison you, for your safety"
  - pjerem 4y ago
    I don’t know which country you are talking about but I haven’t heard about prison sentences for not respecting lockdowns, only fines. At least in the EU. And while those laws were pretty stupidly implemented they were just the outcome of improvisation from unprepared governments, not some totalitarian vision. Even citizens from countries with a strong culture of disobedience understood that.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  I guess we disagree on “totalitarian” — or if the BBC is a “tabloid”. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59486285.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59486285.amp
  - yesenadam 4y ago
    I can't see "totalitarian" used on that page. I'm confused what your point is. The story is about 3 people escaping from "one of Australia's main quarantine facilities for people returning to the country" and being arrested when they were caught. That sounds like very unremarkable news to this Australian, but it seems that to some people it sounds like totally unacceptable totalitarianism, no idea why. Not the first time I've seen people post similar unremarkable "news" items on HN accompanied by extravagant claims that Australia is suddenly like the USSR or something.
    - 4y ago
jeffbee 4y ago
Just having a gun in your home increases your risk of being shot - virtually always either by your angry spouse, or yourself - by 50%. The idea that having a gun make you safer has no sound basis.
- bagels 4y ago
  Surely there are confounding variables? For instance, if one does/does not have a criminal record, has/does not have a propensity for violence, or maybe most importantly does/does not have curious children in the house.
  - dncornholio 4y ago
    US reasoning is so weird. It's ALWAYS safer to have no gun than to have one? I'd even say that you have less chance to get shot unarmed than you do armed. Is there any data to back this up?
    - GiorgioG 4y ago
      I was born in the US to Italian immigrants - so I don't particularly feel it's just "US reasoning". We didn't live in the greatest neighborhood growing up (about 2-3 miles from where the Buffalo Tops grocery store shooting occurred.) My father had a .22 caliber rifle. One late night (2-3 am) when we were asleep the doorbell rang. My father answered the door with his rifle in hand. Two people claiming to be Buffalo Police Officers were "looking for a missing child" and wanted to come in to ask questions. My father felt something was amiss and didn't let them in. He subsequently called the police and they had no such report of a missing child in the area, nor any police officers going door to door at that hour of the night. In this case I feel it was safer to have a gun than no gun. You can't plan for such events, the best you can do is being prepared for it. There are consequences to gun ownership and consequences to not owning a gun. Ultimately it's the law of the land that allows you to make that choice for yourself. A defensive use of a firearm doesn't mean you actually need to fire the weapon. The mere presence of a gun can act as a deterrent.
- lelanthran 4y ago
Reason077 4y ago
> “the argument for removing rifles ignores that they’re rarely used in crimes” But common in mass shootings. In the US, “semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings”: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in...
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Mass shootings aren’t common. Also, most “mass shootings” are by pistol by gangs — you’re citing a statistic on the largest ones, which are rare even among rare events. Generally, we shouldn’t base policy around outliers of outliers.
  - rswail 4y ago
    How about basing policy on not getting innocent children and adults mass murdered on a regular basis? They are outliers of outliers in other countries. In the US, it's once a week.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      > mass murdered on a regular basis? That doesn’t happen — it’s been four years since a similarly deadly shooting. > They are outliers of outliers in other countries. In the US, it's once a week. You forgot to exclude gang violence.
  - meheleventyone 4y ago
    Comedy gold. We shouldn’t base policy around outliers of outliers but we should have a policy of arming the populace in case they need to lead an insurrection which is itself an extreme outlier. Or the chance of needing a gun for self defence which is also quite the outlier particularly if you drill down into the actual risk factors rather than using broad statistics. So far this year more school kids have died from being shot in the line of duty than cops who are routinely armed. So it doesn’t strike me as that much of an outlier. In particular kids should definitely be safer from gun violence than a police officer. That seems like a reasonable goal? Or the fact that the incidence of school shootings means kids are more widely impacted than just those who end up on the wrong end of a gun.
iforgotpassword 4y ago
Your first paragraph makes me realize how messed up reality appears to be. A mass shooting every now and then is the new normal. A worthy trade-off for being able to defend yourself and keep the government from issuing lockdowns. If someone broke into my house the default assumption has to be that they're armed and I should fear for me an my family's lives. So I better be armed myself, and better armed then the burglars. Just don't accidentally shoot a family member that you mistake for the home invader in the heat of the moment. But that would never happen to you anyways, only to other, stupid and irresponsible people - who pretty much then deserve to live with the consequences. Compare that to any European country, where burglars always wait until nobody is home, and even if that goes wrong you at least don't have to fear for anyone's life as they'll either beat it immediately or you calmly hand over your cash and be happy you're alive and well.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  This is an incredibly bad faith response which creates strawmen I never said. You’re welcome not to own a gun if you feel like that would be a better choice for you and/or your family. Nobody is making you. What I’m saying is that you don’t have a right to take guns away from other people because you find them scary — even if that is occasionally abused, leading to tragedy. People have a right to defend themselves. > A worthy trade-off for being able to defend yourself and keep the government from issuing lockdowns. Over 100,000,000 people died to democide in the past century — around 70 times the current US murder rate for 100 years. (That is, 7000 years of the current US murder-with-guns rate.) Guns also protected Black Panthers, Afghani insurrectionists, and Ukrainian militias. I’m sorry that the world isn’t as friendly and happy as you would prefer it — I find that disquieting too.
  - multjoy 4y ago
    Speaking of rights, what happened to "well regulated"? There seems a lot of interest in "Shall not be", but far less the further into the paragraph you go.
  - iforgotpassword 4y ago
    > which creates strawmen I never said. Yes you did, and you even repeat it in your reply. > You’re welcome not to own a gun if you feel like that would be a better choice for you and/or your family. Nobody is making you. Yes, they are pretty much making you in parts of the US, because things are so bad. > What I’m saying is that you don’t have a right to take guns away from other people because you find them scary. Not just because "I find them scary", but because they are literally dangerous. They are made to kill. That's their only purpose. And yes, you absolutely have the right to take them away from people - just like you have the right to declare certain substances illegal to sell, consume or own, and limit people's freedom in a dozen other ways for the sake of society's well being as a whole. > even if that is occasionally abused, leading to tragedy. So where's the straw man again? > People have a right to defend themselves. And we arrived at the knee jerk reaction. Taking the arms race as a given. Don't even question why things are that fucked up in the first place. Might have to fear for my life any time of the day, so better have a semi-automatic rifle at hand. It's just so very sad. > Over 100,000,000 people died to democide in the past century In the US? Or Europe? Or might it have been in some really unstable chaotic parts of the world? Why you would even want to compare this to a civilized first world country is beyond me. A more reasonable approach would be comparisons with countries that are socially and structurally similar to the US but have different gun control laws, but that comparison wouldn't really fly with your views I guess. > I’m sorry that the world isn’t as friendly and happy as you would prefer it — I find that disquieting too. It doesn't seem you want it to be.
cycomanic 4y ago
Your argument is disingenuous. You say guns can be used by weaker people to defend themselves (not sure if you consider children weak), and the argue that rifles kill less people than hammers. Yes rifles, handguns on the other hand kill >30 times more (and there is a large unspecified firearm category which kills ~10 times more than hammers). So are you suggesting weaker woman should take a rifle to their date in case they need to defend themselves. The bigger issue is however that I'm very certain there are more events of a fun being used to attack a weaker person, than od a weaker person defendinf themselves with one.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  No, she should use a handgun. The rifle point was that while most murders are by handgun, most gun laws restrict rifles — which was a specific, second thing I was calling out. > The bigger issue is however that I'm very certain there are more events of a fun being used to attack a weaker person, than od a weaker person defendinf themselves with one. My point is that is more equal than when violence relies on knives and bats and fists.
cycomanic 4y ago
> You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors. So show us the statistics that crime rates in states with high gun ownership are lower.
- lliamander 4y ago
  The relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates are (weakly) negative https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/
cycomanic 4y ago
> You see an increase in crimes against people when the equalizing force of guns is removed: assaults, muggings, home invasions, rapes, etc. Guns can (and do) allow smaller men, women, and the elderly to defend themselves with lethal force — against stronger aggressors. So by your argument crime should be lower in states with less gun control. That is not reflected in reality, in fact according to [1 ], the states with the highest crime rates have actually amongst the laxest gun control laws. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
- coinbasetwwa 4y ago
  Correlation =/= causation
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    But lack of correlation is evidence that there’s no causation
watwut 4y ago
No, rapes would not go down if guns were removed. Guns don't prevent rapes and actual rape and domestic violence victims ended up in prison after trying to defend themselves with guns. It is simply not true that women, and the elderly would defend themselves with lethal force all that often, besides aggressors are the ones who are quicker at obtaining guns and using them.
- CapricornNoble 4y ago
  >>>It is simply not true that women, and the elderly would defend themselves with lethal force all that often, How often is acceptably "often enough" for the disadvantaged to protect themselves? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/04/texas-woman-who-shot-an-alleged-purse-snatcher-says-her-gun-saved-her-life/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/04/texas-woman...

merek 4y ago

The King of England, Tony Blair, could start shoving you around.