3 ms·

I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. This eit

I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. This either means reactionary measures are ineffective, or they're being policed ineffectively, or there is some other societal/cultural issue at play that doesn't exist in NH. > Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Ancapistani 3y ago
> I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. It sounds like I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you. That's fine, I'm just giving context :P I think the causal arrow goes the other way. People raised in rural areas encounter firearms far more often - and in different contexts - than people raised in urban areas. When the only times you see firearms are on the hips of law enforcement or in the hands of criminals, it's reasonable that you will develop a very different view of them. In other words, I believe that on a statistical level support for gun control is proportional to the population density where people spend their early lives. I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. > This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country. I spent about a decade as an Anarcho-Capitalist in socialist country. It was... an experience, that's for sure. It reinforced my belief that the people are far more apt to compromise and understand opposing views when they spend time face-to-face with people who disagree with them.
- timeon 3y ago
  > I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. On the other hand, the fact that almost anyone can have gun encourages police brutality. Because they need to expect anyone could be armed so they act accordingly. Also it is far easier to obtain gun illegally for violent criminals, when occurrence of guns in population is high.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  > I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. In this story, who gets to play the US and who gets to play the USSR? Cause I want to be on the side that outspends the other on firearms. Unlike those wussy nations who don't have gun violence.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Ancapistani 3y ago

> I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. It sounds like I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you. That's fine, I'm just giving context :P I think the causal arrow goes the other way. People raised in rural areas encounter firearms far more often - and in different contexts - than people raised in urban areas. When the only times you see firearms are on the hips of law enforcement or in the hands of criminals, it's reasonable that you will develop a very different view of them. In other words, I believe that on a statistical level support for gun control is proportional to the population density where people spend their early lives. I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. > This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country. I spent about a decade as an Anarcho-Capitalist in socialist country. It was... an experience, that's for sure. It reinforced my belief that the people are far more apt to compromise and understand opposing views when they spend time face-to-face with people who disagree with them.

timeon 3y ago
> I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. On the other hand, the fact that almost anyone can have gun encourages police brutality. Because they need to expect anyone could be armed so they act accordingly. Also it is far easier to obtain gun illegally for violent criminals, when occurrence of guns in population is high.
nullindividual 3y ago
> I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. In this story, who gets to play the US and who gets to play the USSR? Cause I want to be on the side that outspends the other on firearms. Unlike those wussy nations who don't have gun violence.