6 ms·

Another reason why I left California. You can't buy a Canik's as a non-LEO. Also, criminals get whatever guns they want and carry them while law-abiding citizen

Another reason why I left California. You can't buy a Canik's as a non-LEO. Also, criminals get whatever guns they want and carry them while law-abiding citizens can't do anything except wish not to be mugged or murdered with strong objections. It's completely absurd given how violent America is.

earthscienceman 3y ago
Can you tell me, with sincere curiosity, how you expect being able to buy modern handguns to make America less violent? I ask as a gun owner.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  There's a saying, "An armed society is a polite society." The reason is because of perceived threat. If very few people are armed, people are more likely to act a fool because they don't fear the consequences from npcs. Risk taking along these lines increases as does the physical delta. But as the probability of random npc folks carrying approaches one, suddenly there is a very real chance that acting a fool carries permanent consequences. Consider the active shooter in a church that was stopped in Texas by a worshipper concealed carrying. One person stopped a tragedy. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/man-who-took-out-church-gunman-to-receive-states-highest-civilian-honor/2290236/ https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/man-who-took-out-church-gu... And now consider other situations that tend to be heated where folks overreact: road rage, etc. Folks may be less likely to escalate things when they believe the other party has the ability to respond with deadly force. This same hypothesis applies to mugging. While the mugger may get the drop on their victim, others nearby that are armed may be able to appropriately intervene to stop the initial assault. Allowing the general public to not only be armed but carry the same stopping force as the baddies reduces the imbalance, leveling the playing field.
  - danny_codes 3y ago
    Except for the fact that this doesn't work at all in practice, it makes perfect sense.
    - some_random 3y ago
      Would you like to provide a source for that?
      - DoughnutHole 3y ago
        The fact that the USA is shockingly violent compared to basically all other similarly developed countries which are not heavily armed.
        sneak 3y ago
        This is not actually true. The level of violent crime in 99% of the USA is the same or lower as most other developed countries. For reference, more people kill themselves with guns in the USA than are killed by other people with guns. If gun violence were truly a huge problem, you'd think that suicides would be outnumbered by gun murders, but they're not. The numbers look big because it's a country of 330 million people, but ultimately the number of people killed with guns is pretty low (and it's something that can actually safely be completely ignored if you remove gang-on-gang and drug trade related violence, which is the vast majority of firearms deaths). For example, Obama killed more children with drones in 8 years than children were killed with guns in the USA in 20 years. (In both cases we are talking about absolute figures <1000.) The "USA has a gun violence problem" is one of those "everybody knows" memes, however, so good luck convincing anyone to the contrary.
        mcv 3y ago
        You make it sound like suicide is totally fine and harmless. Isn't it shocking that lots of people kill themselves with guns? Because that's the thing with guns: they make killing easy. They also make suicide trivial. I know people who have struggled with depression and survived multiple suicide attempts. If they had access to guns, I don't think they'd be alive right now. The numbers don't just look big because the US is a large country. Corrected for population size, gun violence in the US is still at least an order of magnitude larger than in other countries. I know of no other country where schools practice shooter drills. > For example, Obama killed more children with drones in 8 years than children were killed with guns in the USA in 20 years. (In both cases we are talking about absolute figures <1000.) That does not seem to be even remotely true. Not for any part of that claim. Well, maybe the part about children killed by drone strikes being less than 1000, because I can't find figures about that, but the number of civilians killed by drone strikes in the last 20 years seems to be 10k-20k. According to [0], 31780 children have been killed by guns between 2000 and 2020. According to [1], the number of children dying from firearms is rising and now larger than the number of children dying from cars or cancer. Your entire suggestion that people killed by guns is not really a problem sounds incredibly callous about human life. [0] https://www.prb.org/articles/31780-reasons-to-care-about-gun-violence/ https://www.prb.org/articles/31780-reasons-to-care-about-gun... [1] https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/ https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen...
  - adammarples 3y ago
    And as usual Americans fail to spot that they have one of the best armed and least polite societies in the world. I'd put the case that a polite society is unarmed.
    - ChainOfFools 3y ago
      > I'd put the case that a polite society is unarmed The supreme irony lies in the fact that this statement is completely reversed from the real state of things: it is a pathologically impolite society that feels it necessary to arm itself, against itself. Unhealthy tolerance and passivity toward mundane, petty assholery and dominance-seeking behavior is going to destroy this country.
freen 3y ago
They buy the guns from the cops.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  At 4x retail. Don’t think that isn’t part of the reason it’s set up that way.
pkulak 3y ago
So, just so I understand, bad guys all have guns. And you wish you could have one too, for protection against said bad guys. But why is a firefight preferable to a mugging?
- a-french-anon 3y ago
  There's that little something called "dignity". You know, trying to do something about your situation instead of rolling over and praying for the meanies to be lenient with you.
  - pkulak 3y ago
    I find dignity in being alive for my family.
    - mcv 3y ago
      The whole notion of using a gun for self-defense sounds insane to me. The criminal is the one starting the violent interaction and is therefore prepared for it, probably has their gun ready or within easy reach. For me to then want to draw my gun sounds like a recipe to get shot. Being not a threat to a dangerous idiot and getting out alive sounds far preferable to me than dying like a wannabe John Wayne. Everybody being armed ups the stakes for everybody, and I'd expect criminals to be more likely to shoot in that situation. And having guns for everybody, but only the best guns for criminals, sounds like the worst idea of all. Best of all would be to make it harder for criminals specifically to get guns by having every gun and gun transaction registered and verified. Every loophole is going to be abused.
      - jackskell 3y ago
        The United States was founded with the principle that (from a legal sense) the primacy of power and responsibility belonged to individuals, not government. The lack of connectivity between different societal groups allowed relatively peaceful interactions between groups, (unless you were a Native American or a slave, sadly). From this framework, people (men, largely) were expected to provide for themselves and their families. Food, shelter, “retirement” (or putting provisions in place for old age), and yes, personal security from threats, both from other individuals and from any future possible oppressive government, as well as being responsible for being personally armed to repel foreign invaders. In modern times, being armed either in or outside the home (or place of business) gives us a few things. It continues the principle of being responsible for one’s own personal security, rather than relying on societal pressures for bad behavior (!) or dependence on the timely and enthusiastic response of local law enforcement. I think we would agree that part of the responsibility for firearms ownership is safe storage, mental and legal preparation for an event, and continuous training. With rights come responsibilities. Not everyone will choose to own a firearm, and that’s ok, each person should be allowed to make their own decisions. Law enforcement efforts are reactionary, not proactive, the negative effects of which are exacerbated by out failed criminal justice system, the full fruits of which have been on display since the 80s, depending on who you believe. Simple possession of a firearm does not make every (legal) defensive use a quick draw contest or result in a hail of bullets. There is a deterrence affect in locales where lawful weapons carry is legal. FBI statistics, depending on year, will tell us that “civilian” display of a weapon will stop a threat upwards of 93% of the time, without any shots fired. When the “civilian” fires a weapon in self defense, the average number of shots remains less than 3 (although trending upwards..) Law enforcement fires far more rounds per encounter, with the resultant display of (excessive?) force and possibility of downrange consequences. There are people who would rather draw their weapon to defend themselves and / or their family than depend on the rationality of a person threatening them, who is statistically likely to be in an altered state of mind, mentally ill, or has been released from the criminal justice system un-rehabilitated (or any combination of these). In a country that can’t even keep drugs out of prisons, as well as other failures to enforce public safety, trying to restrict firearms from being possessed by anyone is not a reality. As the public failures to enforce existing laws continue to be documented and published, most citizens develop a jaundiced view of the law in general. I think it was societal and family expectations that reinforced morality, not laws, and substituting laws for morality is folly also, given who writes and influences the laws, as well as the tyranny possible by governments selectively enforcing laws. As you say, everyone being armed does up the stakes, but it ups the stakes for the right group of people - those people who would prey on others.

earthscienceman 3y ago

Can you tell me, with sincere curiosity, how you expect being able to buy modern handguns to make America less violent? I ask as a gun owner.

hellojesus 3y ago
There's a saying, "An armed society is a polite society." The reason is because of perceived threat. If very few people are armed, people are more likely to act a fool because they don't fear the consequences from npcs. Risk taking along these lines increases as does the physical delta. But as the probability of random npc folks carrying approaches one, suddenly there is a very real chance that acting a fool carries permanent consequences. Consider the active shooter in a church that was stopped in Texas by a worshipper concealed carrying. One person stopped a tragedy. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/man-who-took-out-church-gunman-to-receive-states-highest-civilian-honor/2290236/ https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/man-who-took-out-church-gu... And now consider other situations that tend to be heated where folks overreact: road rage, etc. Folks may be less likely to escalate things when they believe the other party has the ability to respond with deadly force. This same hypothesis applies to mugging. While the mugger may get the drop on their victim, others nearby that are armed may be able to appropriately intervene to stop the initial assault. Allowing the general public to not only be armed but carry the same stopping force as the baddies reduces the imbalance, leveling the playing field.
- danny_codes 3y ago
  Except for the fact that this doesn't work at all in practice, it makes perfect sense.
  - some_random 3y ago
    Would you like to provide a source for that?
    - DoughnutHole 3y ago
      The fact that the USA is shockingly violent compared to basically all other similarly developed countries which are not heavily armed.
      - sneak 3y ago
        This is not actually true. The level of violent crime in 99% of the USA is the same or lower as most other developed countries. For reference, more people kill themselves with guns in the USA than are killed by other people with guns. If gun violence were truly a huge problem, you'd think that suicides would be outnumbered by gun murders, but they're not. The numbers look big because it's a country of 330 million people, but ultimately the number of people killed with guns is pretty low (and it's something that can actually safely be completely ignored if you remove gang-on-gang and drug trade related violence, which is the vast majority of firearms deaths). For example, Obama killed more children with drones in 8 years than children were killed with guns in the USA in 20 years. (In both cases we are talking about absolute figures <1000.) The "USA has a gun violence problem" is one of those "everybody knows" memes, however, so good luck convincing anyone to the contrary.
        mcv 3y ago
        You make it sound like suicide is totally fine and harmless. Isn't it shocking that lots of people kill themselves with guns? Because that's the thing with guns: they make killing easy. They also make suicide trivial. I know people who have struggled with depression and survived multiple suicide attempts. If they had access to guns, I don't think they'd be alive right now. The numbers don't just look big because the US is a large country. Corrected for population size, gun violence in the US is still at least an order of magnitude larger than in other countries. I know of no other country where schools practice shooter drills. > For example, Obama killed more children with drones in 8 years than children were killed with guns in the USA in 20 years. (In both cases we are talking about absolute figures <1000.) That does not seem to be even remotely true. Not for any part of that claim. Well, maybe the part about children killed by drone strikes being less than 1000, because I can't find figures about that, but the number of civilians killed by drone strikes in the last 20 years seems to be 10k-20k. According to [0], 31780 children have been killed by guns between 2000 and 2020. According to [1], the number of children dying from firearms is rising and now larger than the number of children dying from cars or cancer. Your entire suggestion that people killed by guns is not really a problem sounds incredibly callous about human life. [0] https://www.prb.org/articles/31780-reasons-to-care-about-gun-violence/ https://www.prb.org/articles/31780-reasons-to-care-about-gun... [1] https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/ https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/child-and-teen...
- adammarples 3y ago
  And as usual Americans fail to spot that they have one of the best armed and least polite societies in the world. I'd put the case that a polite society is unarmed.
  - ChainOfFools 3y ago
    > I'd put the case that a polite society is unarmed The supreme irony lies in the fact that this statement is completely reversed from the real state of things: it is a pathologically impolite society that feels it necessary to arm itself, against itself. Unhealthy tolerance and passivity toward mundane, petty assholery and dominance-seeking behavior is going to destroy this country.

freen 3y ago

They buy the guns from the cops.

dclowd9901 3y ago
At 4x retail. Don’t think that isn’t part of the reason it’s set up that way.

pkulak 3y ago

So, just so I understand, bad guys all have guns. And you wish you could have one too, for protection against said bad guys. But why is a firefight preferable to a mugging?

a-french-anon 3y ago
There's that little something called "dignity". You know, trying to do something about your situation instead of rolling over and praying for the meanies to be lenient with you.
- pkulak 3y ago
  I find dignity in being alive for my family.
  - mcv 3y ago
    The whole notion of using a gun for self-defense sounds insane to me. The criminal is the one starting the violent interaction and is therefore prepared for it, probably has their gun ready or within easy reach. For me to then want to draw my gun sounds like a recipe to get shot. Being not a threat to a dangerous idiot and getting out alive sounds far preferable to me than dying like a wannabe John Wayne. Everybody being armed ups the stakes for everybody, and I'd expect criminals to be more likely to shoot in that situation. And having guns for everybody, but only the best guns for criminals, sounds like the worst idea of all. Best of all would be to make it harder for criminals specifically to get guns by having every gun and gun transaction registered and verified. Every loophole is going to be abused.
    - jackskell 3y ago
      The United States was founded with the principle that (from a legal sense) the primacy of power and responsibility belonged to individuals, not government. The lack of connectivity between different societal groups allowed relatively peaceful interactions between groups, (unless you were a Native American or a slave, sadly). From this framework, people (men, largely) were expected to provide for themselves and their families. Food, shelter, “retirement” (or putting provisions in place for old age), and yes, personal security from threats, both from other individuals and from any future possible oppressive government, as well as being responsible for being personally armed to repel foreign invaders. In modern times, being armed either in or outside the home (or place of business) gives us a few things. It continues the principle of being responsible for one’s own personal security, rather than relying on societal pressures for bad behavior (!) or dependence on the timely and enthusiastic response of local law enforcement. I think we would agree that part of the responsibility for firearms ownership is safe storage, mental and legal preparation for an event, and continuous training. With rights come responsibilities. Not everyone will choose to own a firearm, and that’s ok, each person should be allowed to make their own decisions. Law enforcement efforts are reactionary, not proactive, the negative effects of which are exacerbated by out failed criminal justice system, the full fruits of which have been on display since the 80s, depending on who you believe. Simple possession of a firearm does not make every (legal) defensive use a quick draw contest or result in a hail of bullets. There is a deterrence affect in locales where lawful weapons carry is legal. FBI statistics, depending on year, will tell us that “civilian” display of a weapon will stop a threat upwards of 93% of the time, without any shots fired. When the “civilian” fires a weapon in self defense, the average number of shots remains less than 3 (although trending upwards..) Law enforcement fires far more rounds per encounter, with the resultant display of (excessive?) force and possibility of downrange consequences. There are people who would rather draw their weapon to defend themselves and / or their family than depend on the rationality of a person threatening them, who is statistically likely to be in an altered state of mind, mentally ill, or has been released from the criminal justice system un-rehabilitated (or any combination of these). In a country that can’t even keep drugs out of prisons, as well as other failures to enforce public safety, trying to restrict firearms from being possessed by anyone is not a reality. As the public failures to enforce existing laws continue to be documented and published, most citizens develop a jaundiced view of the law in general. I think it was societal and family expectations that reinforced morality, not laws, and substituting laws for morality is folly also, given who writes and influences the laws, as well as the tyranny possible by governments selectively enforcing laws. As you say, everyone being armed does up the stakes, but it ups the stakes for the right group of people - those people who would prey on others.