3 ms·

I’m about as liberal and “woke” as can be, and I agree. If we somehow managed to remove most guns from the US, we would still kill ourselves and each other with

I’m about as liberal and “woke” as can be, and I agree. If we somehow managed to remove most guns from the US, we would still kill ourselves and each other with bombs, knives, poison, and our enormous vehicles. Driving into crowds seems to be getting more popular, for instance.

suzzer99 3y ago
But the point is it wouldn't be as easy for an untrained person to kill as many people at once as it is now, and cops wouldn't be as terrified to go up against the killer as they are now when they know an AR is in play.
- Tepix 3y ago
  Think about it: Without guns and cars we could still play Qwitzatteracht, the golf game, to kill each other.
npunt 3y ago
Sure Americans would still kill each other without guns, but would they do so to the same degree? Even if the exact same intent exists, if things are harder to do, they won't get done as much. After all, many people have cars in Japan, England, and any other country with strict gun controls, and they don't see the same levels of violence. If ice cream is 100 paces away from you, you're less likely to eat it than if it's right in front of you. It's basic psychology that the greater the friction to satisfy our impulses, the less likely we are driven by them. It's maddeningly obvious. Similarly if everyone else was eating ice cream. We're social creatures, we emulate what we see others do. This is the frustrating thing about this topic: it's a discussion about harm reduction, but people don't treat it that way and just throw up their hands and say 'oh it'd be the same without' when the data and logic don't support that. In decision making parlance, it's a classic perfect is the enemy of the good response. In HN parlance, this is a question of floats not ints. In gamer parlance, this is a question of DPS and AOE, and how much nerfing guns lowers it. I don't know how many more ways we can say it to get through to folks.

suzzer99 3y ago

But the point is it wouldn't be as easy for an untrained person to kill as many people at once as it is now, and cops wouldn't be as terrified to go up against the killer as they are now when they know an AR is in play.

Tepix 3y ago
Think about it: Without guns and cars we could still play Qwitzatteracht, the golf game, to kill each other.

npunt 3y ago

Sure Americans would still kill each other without guns, but would they do so to the same degree? Even if the exact same intent exists, if things are harder to do, they won't get done as much. After all, many people have cars in Japan, England, and any other country with strict gun controls, and they don't see the same levels of violence. If ice cream is 100 paces away from you, you're less likely to eat it than if it's right in front of you. It's basic psychology that the greater the friction to satisfy our impulses, the less likely we are driven by them. It's maddeningly obvious. Similarly if everyone else was eating ice cream. We're social creatures, we emulate what we see others do. This is the frustrating thing about this topic: it's a discussion about harm reduction, but people don't treat it that way and just throw up their hands and say 'oh it'd be the same without' when the data and logic don't support that. In decision making parlance, it's a classic perfect is the enemy of the good response. In HN parlance, this is a question of floats not ints. In gamer parlance, this is a question of DPS and AOE, and how much nerfing guns lowers it. I don't know how many more ways we can say it to get through to folks.