4 ms·

I'm a gun owner and I believe in the rights of citizens to be armed, but I'm still not sure this is a good argument. On principle, anything that causes unnecess

I'm a gun owner and I believe in the rights of citizens to be armed, but I'm still not sure this is a good argument. On principle, anything that causes unnecessary deaths should be curtailed unless the benefits somehow outweigh the damage. We still have people driving cars who kill each other every day by accident, but there's a general feeling that it would be better to do away with that if we could find a way to eliminate private transportation without destroying our economy in the process. To make a strong argument for firearms ownership requires not just downplaying the harm but actually explaining why the public good of an armed populace outweighs the many and obvious evils it inflicts on innocent people. That's a much tougher case to make to someone who's lost a family member to gun violence, but nonetheless it's a case that needs to be made (in my opinion) if we're going to remain an unruly bunch who won't be led down the road to either a right-wing or left-wing police state. [edit: Just to clarify, I think there's an equally strong argument to be made about freedom of movement as a societal benefit, and an individual right, that outweighs the harms caused by humans driving their own cars.]

wkat4242 3y ago
I think the whole concept of "carrying guns to prevent a police state from taking over our country" is a bit outdated. These days this is not done with bullets but with carefully planned public manipulation through media and social networks. And if it really comes down to bullets, the government owns a lot bigger guns than you do.
- smaudet 3y ago
  False dichotomy, corporations are another (somewhat powerful entity). They don't tend to use direct force either, but there are private militias...defending yourself from a gang or haywire corp is also an important thing. People like to take the big argument, defense from govt, and tear it down from a broad level, and then ignore the many other lethal threats posed. There have been a couple shootings in recent memory, where citizens quickly resolved the matter far faster than law enforcement could have hoped. Situations too, where men armed with axes etc. went on killing sprees in other countries and mostly people were unable to respond. I don't think everyone should bear arms, or even that it should be common, but I do think the right to defend yourself is a pretty inalieable right. If gun ownership can help with that, then by all means...
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Guess what these axe wielders would have done if they had access to guns.
- chmod600 3y ago
  The recent surge in violence as DAs have stopped fully prosecuting criminals -- including those who commit violent gun crimes -- has blurred the line between criminal violence and state violence. That renews the argument for self defense. In other words, as the state declines to protect you, you have a better claim on the natural right to protect yourself.
  - mohinder 3y ago
    > DAs have stopped fully prosecuting criminals -- including those who commit violent gun crimes Just wondering if you have any evidence to back up this assertion.
    - noduerme 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - mohinder 3y ago
        > gaslighting Please. Just link a study or something. FWIW I think it's wild I'm being accused of gaslighting over a simple request. Isn't that DARVO?
        throwaway_e66m 3y ago
        I think the issue is that it's such an easy web-search, your failure to do it and instead make a "simple request" appears to present an implication that the phenomenon in question doesn't exist, i.e. gaslighting. The assertion for which you asked evidence is not a correlation between prosecutorial policy ("fully prosecuting criminals") and crime rates, but rather the existence of the policies themselves. So, there's no need for a "study": the prosecutors put it down in writing (and those policies then get reported by the media). For the record, I support some of these prosecutorial reform efforts, but through legislation which eliminates things like "add-on charges", not by prosecutors selectively deciding who will and won't get them. But, since you asked, here's just a few -- and I'll make the "simple request" to you to do the "hard work" of a web-search if you want more than these: try Chesa Boudin, Larry Krasner, etc. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg announces he is directing his staff either not to prosecute, accept "community diversion" in lieu of prosecution, or at least not to seek any jail time, for a slew of offenses, including e.g. armed robbery: https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Day-One-Letter-Policies-1.03.2022.pdf https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Day-O... Media coverage of same: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-dist... https://nypost.com/2022/01/04/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-to-stop-seeking-prison-in-some-cases/ https://nypost.com/2022/01/04/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-to-st... LA district attorney George Gascón, upon being elected, issued a memo modifying the policy to reduce the charging of violent criminals: https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRECTIVE-20-08.pdf https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRE... Media coverage of same: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/crimes-las-prosecute https://www.foxnews.com/politics/crimes-las-prosecute And while anecdotal, here's evidence of the implementation of that policy, a letter from Union Pacific railroad to the DA's office, complaining that when their agents apprehend criminals robbing trains, they are not fully prosecuted: https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@newsinfo/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_la_district_atty_211221.pdf https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@newsinfo/document... HN thread on same: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29985568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29985568
- junofan 3y ago
  I think you’re missing the nuance here. If I can protect myself using a weapon, I don’t need to vote for mass surveillance to protect me. The ability to engage in shootouts with the police isn’t what prevents the formation of a police state. The problem with a police state is that state violence becomes a way to exercise political power.
  - noduerme 3y ago
    Precisely. Policing in any country is always a mix of public service and protection racket. A police monopoly on protecting people from other people, or society from itself, leaves no safety for anyone. It's ironic that some of the most vociferously anti-gun people in the US are also the ones with the clearest view of the police as an armed gang. But absent armed police and without the right to protect themselves, what do they think will fill the vacuum?
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      People don't agree on whether there is a positive or negative correlation between security and safety; whether increased security makes the society more or less safe. Some people also think that everyone interested in security (including the police, the military, and people buying guns for self defense) is inherently suspicious. Trust makes the society safe. When there is a lack of trust, careful security measures can be used to compensate. But security can also lead to an arms race that makes everyone less safe, as measures that improve someone's safety may have a negative effect on others.
      - junofan 3y ago
        > But security can also lead to an arms race that makes everyone less safe, as measures that improve someone's safety may have a negative effect on others. The stoic natural rights theory on which the US is founded definitely tips the balance towards self-defense over the collective. It’s the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.
        3y ago
- xwdv 3y ago
  The Ukrainians carried guns to prevent Russians from taking over their country.
nojvek 3y ago
As someone who moved to the US and finds the gun culture absolutely bonkers, I get the gun culture and why they had it in the constitution. I don’t get the obsession behind open carry though. What good is people walking around in shopping malls with large semi automatic rifles on their back?
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Almost no one actually does this, and most sane gun owners think those people are attention whores at the very best, dangerous nuts at worst. This is a phenomenon I've head described as "nutpicking." Take the absolute worst of a demographic and then go "why are you all like THAT?" Claiming US gun culture is all about going to the mall open-carrying a semiauto rifle is on the same level as claiming gay men all prance around in assless chaps and leather. No, they don't, and it shouldn't be any mystery why claiming that is so offends people.
  - OhMeadhbh 3y ago
    I'm going to plus one psunavy03's comment here. I own firearms, but they're locked in a gun safe. I pull them out every now and again, drive them to a gun range, fire them, clean them and then put them back in the safe. And I believe this is the experience of the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US. It occurs to me I haven't seen any estimates for how many people open carry on a daily basis. (You would think SOMEONE would collect that data SOMEWHERE.) The states are sort of (in)famous for how many people own firearms, but I assert the number of people who open carry on a daily (or weekly) basis is much smaller than the number of people who own firearms. I'm going to stop short of accusing nojvek of nutpicking, but encourage them to look around. The stats I've seen are that one in three Americans owns a firearm. If you were walking around and one out of three people were open carrying... well... I think that would be a little unusual unless you were in a gun show or at a shooting range. Gun-culture in America can be weird, but it's often portrayed as being weirder than it actually is. [Edit: also. how did we go from cable modems to guns so quickly?]
    - quickthrower2 3y ago

wkat4242 3y ago

I think the whole concept of "carrying guns to prevent a police state from taking over our country" is a bit outdated. These days this is not done with bullets but with carefully planned public manipulation through media and social networks. And if it really comes down to bullets, the government owns a lot bigger guns than you do.

smaudet 3y ago
False dichotomy, corporations are another (somewhat powerful entity). They don't tend to use direct force either, but there are private militias...defending yourself from a gang or haywire corp is also an important thing. People like to take the big argument, defense from govt, and tear it down from a broad level, and then ignore the many other lethal threats posed. There have been a couple shootings in recent memory, where citizens quickly resolved the matter far faster than law enforcement could have hoped. Situations too, where men armed with axes etc. went on killing sprees in other countries and mostly people were unable to respond. I don't think everyone should bear arms, or even that it should be common, but I do think the right to defend yourself is a pretty inalieable right. If gun ownership can help with that, then by all means...
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Guess what these axe wielders would have done if they had access to guns.
chmod600 3y ago
The recent surge in violence as DAs have stopped fully prosecuting criminals -- including those who commit violent gun crimes -- has blurred the line between criminal violence and state violence. That renews the argument for self defense. In other words, as the state declines to protect you, you have a better claim on the natural right to protect yourself.
- mohinder 3y ago
  > DAs have stopped fully prosecuting criminals -- including those who commit violent gun crimes Just wondering if you have any evidence to back up this assertion.
  - noduerme 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mohinder 3y ago
      > gaslighting Please. Just link a study or something. FWIW I think it's wild I'm being accused of gaslighting over a simple request. Isn't that DARVO?
      - throwaway_e66m 3y ago
        I think the issue is that it's such an easy web-search, your failure to do it and instead make a "simple request" appears to present an implication that the phenomenon in question doesn't exist, i.e. gaslighting. The assertion for which you asked evidence is not a correlation between prosecutorial policy ("fully prosecuting criminals") and crime rates, but rather the existence of the policies themselves. So, there's no need for a "study": the prosecutors put it down in writing (and those policies then get reported by the media). For the record, I support some of these prosecutorial reform efforts, but through legislation which eliminates things like "add-on charges", not by prosecutors selectively deciding who will and won't get them. But, since you asked, here's just a few -- and I'll make the "simple request" to you to do the "hard work" of a web-search if you want more than these: try Chesa Boudin, Larry Krasner, etc. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg announces he is directing his staff either not to prosecute, accept "community diversion" in lieu of prosecution, or at least not to seek any jail time, for a slew of offenses, including e.g. armed robbery: https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Day-One-Letter-Policies-1.03.2022.pdf https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Day-O... Media coverage of same: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-dist... https://nypost.com/2022/01/04/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-to-stop-seeking-prison-in-some-cases/ https://nypost.com/2022/01/04/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-to-st... LA district attorney George Gascón, upon being elected, issued a memo modifying the policy to reduce the charging of violent criminals: https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRECTIVE-20-08.pdf https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRE... Media coverage of same: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/crimes-las-prosecute https://www.foxnews.com/politics/crimes-las-prosecute And while anecdotal, here's evidence of the implementation of that policy, a letter from Union Pacific railroad to the DA's office, complaining that when their agents apprehend criminals robbing trains, they are not fully prosecuted: https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@newsinfo/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_la_district_atty_211221.pdf https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@newsinfo/document... HN thread on same: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29985568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29985568
junofan 3y ago
I think you’re missing the nuance here. If I can protect myself using a weapon, I don’t need to vote for mass surveillance to protect me. The ability to engage in shootouts with the police isn’t what prevents the formation of a police state. The problem with a police state is that state violence becomes a way to exercise political power.
- noduerme 3y ago
  Precisely. Policing in any country is always a mix of public service and protection racket. A police monopoly on protecting people from other people, or society from itself, leaves no safety for anyone. It's ironic that some of the most vociferously anti-gun people in the US are also the ones with the clearest view of the police as an armed gang. But absent armed police and without the right to protect themselves, what do they think will fill the vacuum?
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    People don't agree on whether there is a positive or negative correlation between security and safety; whether increased security makes the society more or less safe. Some people also think that everyone interested in security (including the police, the military, and people buying guns for self defense) is inherently suspicious. Trust makes the society safe. When there is a lack of trust, careful security measures can be used to compensate. But security can also lead to an arms race that makes everyone less safe, as measures that improve someone's safety may have a negative effect on others.
    - junofan 3y ago
      > But security can also lead to an arms race that makes everyone less safe, as measures that improve someone's safety may have a negative effect on others. The stoic natural rights theory on which the US is founded definitely tips the balance towards self-defense over the collective. It’s the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.
      - 3y ago
xwdv 3y ago
The Ukrainians carried guns to prevent Russians from taking over their country.

nojvek 3y ago

As someone who moved to the US and finds the gun culture absolutely bonkers, I get the gun culture and why they had it in the constitution. I don’t get the obsession behind open carry though. What good is people walking around in shopping malls with large semi automatic rifles on their back?

psunavy03 3y ago
Almost no one actually does this, and most sane gun owners think those people are attention whores at the very best, dangerous nuts at worst. This is a phenomenon I've head described as "nutpicking." Take the absolute worst of a demographic and then go "why are you all like THAT?" Claiming US gun culture is all about going to the mall open-carrying a semiauto rifle is on the same level as claiming gay men all prance around in assless chaps and leather. No, they don't, and it shouldn't be any mystery why claiming that is so offends people.
- OhMeadhbh 3y ago
  I'm going to plus one psunavy03's comment here. I own firearms, but they're locked in a gun safe. I pull them out every now and again, drive them to a gun range, fire them, clean them and then put them back in the safe. And I believe this is the experience of the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US. It occurs to me I haven't seen any estimates for how many people open carry on a daily basis. (You would think SOMEONE would collect that data SOMEWHERE.) The states are sort of (in)famous for how many people own firearms, but I assert the number of people who open carry on a daily (or weekly) basis is much smaller than the number of people who own firearms. I'm going to stop short of accusing nojvek of nutpicking, but encourage them to look around. The stats I've seen are that one in three Americans owns a firearm. If you were walking around and one out of three people were open carrying... well... I think that would be a little unusual unless you were in a gun show or at a shooting range. Gun-culture in America can be weird, but it's often portrayed as being weirder than it actually is. [Edit: also. how did we go from cable modems to guns so quickly?]
  - quickthrower2 3y ago