4 ms·

Those countries probably didn't have access to firearms in the first place. By the way, as an owner of firearms, I can tell you that there is no where near "un

Those countries probably didn't have access to firearms in the first place. By the way, as an owner of firearms, I can tell you that there is no where near "unrestricted access" for anyone unless you're buying them illegally. It was a huge process for me to buy weapons, including a firearm from my father-in-law. Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm. Also, as part of getting my concealed carry, I had to attend a class, and in that class, they drilled into us that we are liable for any collateral damage from use of our weapons. They also drilled into us the fact that we will always have to justify our use of force to our peers, and if we don't, we're going to suffer for it. In addition, we were taught what situations were correct for using force and what situations are not. Most of all, we were drilled to think before we do anything, including drawing our weapons. All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once. I never drew my weapon despite him walking up to us aggressively. I used my words to force him away. I did that because that class taught me to never drew my weapon until shooting is the only recourse left to me. So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves" is wrong, at least in my state. In general, CCW holders are the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful gun owners in the US.

ModernMech 4y ago
> Those countries probably didn't have access to firearms in the first place. Agreed, guns are a driving factor. But you're also right that it's gun culture. Others here have noted Sweden has a higher per-capita rate of guns to humans than the US, the same mental health issues affect swedes as Americans, yet they don't have daily mass shootings. So even when there are a lot of guns, and mental health issues, there is still a way to prevent daily mass shootings. > Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm. That's great you had to go through all that, but it doesn't seem to be working at scale. People who are enthusiastic about guns are responsible for the culture you've created around guns, and the laws on the books for guns. Because the rest of us would have very different laws if we had our way. So really, you have to justify yourself every time a mass shooting happens. This gun culture you're putting on display here just doesn't work. Because many if not most mass shooters acquire their weapons legally. It's like, the whole argument has become "only criminals don't follow the gun laws, so therefore we should make it as easy as possible for them to acquire weapons, because otherwise it would just inconvenience ourselves, since there's nothing we can do about criminals anyway. The best we can do is arm ourselves to the teeth everywhere we go in public life, and at least we have a fighting chance. This is the best way to run society." > All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once. I'm very happy this encounter worked out for you and your wife. I've been in the same scenario, many times, without a gun on me, and it can be scary indeed! Last time a man in the Castro in SF was wielding a hammer, and roared at me and my wife and her friend like a lion. It worked out fine for us, just as it worked out fine for you and yours. The question is: would this have worked out the same way if you hadn't had your gun? Yeah. Seems like it according to your story. So then what good is it doing? > So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves" But... what you just told me contradicts this. You were so fearful of the world that you brought your gun, because you felt that you might be compelled to use it. That you didn't use it when you were provoked does point to restraint, which is admirable; but it doesn't erase the fear that you had initially felt which caused you to bring the gun in the first place. Because why else do you have it unless you feel you might use it? Because the way I see it, the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful people in the US are people who don't bring guns with them into public life. We sometimes have scary interactions with scary people in public life, and the vast majority of the time they don't end in bloodshed, because guns aren't part of the equation. Other countries get this, America does not. The gun culture here does not allow this perspective, and instead constantly tells you that you need your gun otherwise you are unsafe without it. The rest of us living our lives gun-free know that we can be safe without guns, and we appreciate events in our public life, such as technical conferences, to be gun-free as well.
- gavinhoward 4y ago
  > So even when there are a lot of guns, and mental health issues, there is still a way to prevent daily mass shootings. Sure. Except mass shootings aren't daily, and the way to do it is to raise the cost of doing so, not to take away the right of self-defense. > People who are enthusiastic about guns are responsible for the culture you've created around guns, and the laws on the books for guns. This is very wrong in my experience. I grew up in rural Idaho where people were enthusiastic about guns. They were incredibly careful around guns and always taught me that guns are tools, not toys. You know what depicts guns as toys? Hollywood. Video games. Other pop culture. Gangs. It's the depiction of guns as toys or as a method to get your way that is bad, and I never saw that growing up. Perhaps that's why there really aren't mass shootings at rural schools. > So then what good is it doing? Peace of mind. More on that later. > But... what you just told me contradicts this. You were so fearful of the world that you brought your gun, because you felt that you might be compelled to use it. Actually, because I had the weapon, I felt less fearful. You said yourself that your experiences were terrifying. My experience was not for me because I had a backup plan. You were terrified and fearful. I was not. Thus, it was not a contradiction. And you say that plenty of terrifying experiences are resolved without guns. That's true, but it only takes once for that to be catastrophically untrue. But plenty of such things are resolved because of guns. [1] Also, the reason I bought a gun and started carrying? The George Floyd riots. There were shootings by rioters, which for the most part were not the people you claim are responsible for gun culture. And by the way, I pulled a slight trick on you. Notice that I said I never drew my "weapon" in that experience. You automatically assumed I had a gun. I didn't. I had a knife. There is one big reason why. I'm more confident with knives than guns, to remain safe and reduce collateral damage. I carry this knife everywhere I can, even when I don't feel unsafe because it helps me feel less fearful and gives me another option. As it turns out, that incident happened in a place I previously felt completely safe in. But I still had my knife which gave me another option should things have gone south. "When seconds matter, the police are minutes away." So I wasn't carrying because I was fearful. I was carrying because I was prepared. It's funny, though; I could probably walk into a Rust event with this knife, and I would not be breaking any rules. Yet I'm sure you would not like it anyway. That shows how terrible this policy is because it only targets one thing that the Rust Foundation does not like and does not really address what people like you don't like. As another nail in your argument that it's people like me responsible for this culture, those same people are the reason why I feel less confident with guns than knives. I went shooting with those people a few times in my youth. In every single one, I made small mistakes with the guns, and every time, I got corrected strongly, even though I almost never made the same mistake twice. In fact, I often was corrected so strongly and publicly that I actually felt shame. It got to the point that I stopped using guns and never touched a gun for a decade and a half (except for once in basic training). Those "enthusiastic" people actually put me off of guns. So much for spreading gun culture. Thus, I have a hard time believing your argument. You know what would change the gun culture? Having everyone take the same safety classes that I did, to learn how to be safe, and if they are not safe, they should be chewed out by instructors like the people in my youth did me. Then the very poor depiction of guns in movies and pop culture would be more easily ignored and changed for the better as well since people will call out the people who make that pop culture. Politics is a poor way of changing culture because "politics are downstream from culture." You would be swimming upstream. And if the Rust Foundation are going to require events to not allow guns, then perhaps they should pay for armed security to compensate? Event organizers will probably have to. [1]: https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/ https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-ev...

ModernMech 4y ago

> Those countries probably didn't have access to firearms in the first place. Agreed, guns are a driving factor. But you're also right that it's gun culture. Others here have noted Sweden has a higher per-capita rate of guns to humans than the US, the same mental health issues affect swedes as Americans, yet they don't have daily mass shootings. So even when there are a lot of guns, and mental health issues, there is still a way to prevent daily mass shootings. > Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm. That's great you had to go through all that, but it doesn't seem to be working at scale. People who are enthusiastic about guns are responsible for the culture you've created around guns, and the laws on the books for guns. Because the rest of us would have very different laws if we had our way. So really, you have to justify yourself every time a mass shooting happens. This gun culture you're putting on display here just doesn't work. Because many if not most mass shooters acquire their weapons legally. It's like, the whole argument has become "only criminals don't follow the gun laws, so therefore we should make it as easy as possible for them to acquire weapons, because otherwise it would just inconvenience ourselves, since there's nothing we can do about criminals anyway. The best we can do is arm ourselves to the teeth everywhere we go in public life, and at least we have a fighting chance. This is the best way to run society." > All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once. I'm very happy this encounter worked out for you and your wife. I've been in the same scenario, many times, without a gun on me, and it can be scary indeed! Last time a man in the Castro in SF was wielding a hammer, and roared at me and my wife and her friend like a lion. It worked out fine for us, just as it worked out fine for you and yours. The question is: would this have worked out the same way if you hadn't had your gun? Yeah. Seems like it according to your story. So then what good is it doing? > So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves" But... what you just told me contradicts this. You were so fearful of the world that you brought your gun, because you felt that you might be compelled to use it. That you didn't use it when you were provoked does point to restraint, which is admirable; but it doesn't erase the fear that you had initially felt which caused you to bring the gun in the first place. Because why else do you have it unless you feel you might use it? Because the way I see it, the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful people in the US are people who don't bring guns with them into public life. We sometimes have scary interactions with scary people in public life, and the vast majority of the time they don't end in bloodshed, because guns aren't part of the equation. Other countries get this, America does not. The gun culture here does not allow this perspective, and instead constantly tells you that you need your gun otherwise you are unsafe without it. The rest of us living our lives gun-free know that we can be safe without guns, and we appreciate events in our public life, such as technical conferences, to be gun-free as well.

gavinhoward 4y ago
> So even when there are a lot of guns, and mental health issues, there is still a way to prevent daily mass shootings. Sure. Except mass shootings aren't daily, and the way to do it is to raise the cost of doing so, not to take away the right of self-defense. > People who are enthusiastic about guns are responsible for the culture you've created around guns, and the laws on the books for guns. This is very wrong in my experience. I grew up in rural Idaho where people were enthusiastic about guns. They were incredibly careful around guns and always taught me that guns are tools, not toys. You know what depicts guns as toys? Hollywood. Video games. Other pop culture. Gangs. It's the depiction of guns as toys or as a method to get your way that is bad, and I never saw that growing up. Perhaps that's why there really aren't mass shootings at rural schools. > So then what good is it doing? Peace of mind. More on that later. > But... what you just told me contradicts this. You were so fearful of the world that you brought your gun, because you felt that you might be compelled to use it. Actually, because I had the weapon, I felt less fearful. You said yourself that your experiences were terrifying. My experience was not for me because I had a backup plan. You were terrified and fearful. I was not. Thus, it was not a contradiction. And you say that plenty of terrifying experiences are resolved without guns. That's true, but it only takes once for that to be catastrophically untrue. But plenty of such things are resolved because of guns. [1] Also, the reason I bought a gun and started carrying? The George Floyd riots. There were shootings by rioters, which for the most part were not the people you claim are responsible for gun culture. And by the way, I pulled a slight trick on you. Notice that I said I never drew my "weapon" in that experience. You automatically assumed I had a gun. I didn't. I had a knife. There is one big reason why. I'm more confident with knives than guns, to remain safe and reduce collateral damage. I carry this knife everywhere I can, even when I don't feel unsafe because it helps me feel less fearful and gives me another option. As it turns out, that incident happened in a place I previously felt completely safe in. But I still had my knife which gave me another option should things have gone south. "When seconds matter, the police are minutes away." So I wasn't carrying because I was fearful. I was carrying because I was prepared. It's funny, though; I could probably walk into a Rust event with this knife, and I would not be breaking any rules. Yet I'm sure you would not like it anyway. That shows how terrible this policy is because it only targets one thing that the Rust Foundation does not like and does not really address what people like you don't like. As another nail in your argument that it's people like me responsible for this culture, those same people are the reason why I feel less confident with guns than knives. I went shooting with those people a few times in my youth. In every single one, I made small mistakes with the guns, and every time, I got corrected strongly, even though I almost never made the same mistake twice. In fact, I often was corrected so strongly and publicly that I actually felt shame. It got to the point that I stopped using guns and never touched a gun for a decade and a half (except for once in basic training). Those "enthusiastic" people actually put me off of guns. So much for spreading gun culture. Thus, I have a hard time believing your argument. You know what would change the gun culture? Having everyone take the same safety classes that I did, to learn how to be safe, and if they are not safe, they should be chewed out by instructors like the people in my youth did me. Then the very poor depiction of guns in movies and pop culture would be more easily ignored and changed for the better as well since people will call out the people who make that pop culture. Politics is a poor way of changing culture because "politics are downstream from culture." You would be swimming upstream. And if the Rust Foundation are going to require events to not allow guns, then perhaps they should pay for armed security to compensate? Event organizers will probably have to. [1]: https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/ https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-ev...