9 ms·

To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things. Whenever I see arguments about how we should ban cars because they kill more people than guns per year

To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things. Whenever I see arguments about how we should ban cars because they kill more people than guns per year, I always think about that. Cars are good for all kinds of things, and they happen to incidentally cause death. Guns are pretty much only good for killing things. I live in the U.S. I'm not saying we should uniformly ban all weapons, period; I think the issue is more nuanced than that. But it seems hard to defend the fact that introducing guns into a dangerous situation would do anything other than make it more deadly.

derleth 14y ago
> To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things. If you ignore all of the other recreational uses, sure; you can also say that motorcycles only have one use: To kill people who ride them and the people those riders hit.
- drhayes9 14y ago
  Are you lobbying for the restriction of vehicles? Or are you making a point by analogy with guns that I'm missing?
  - derleth 14y ago
    My point is, once you try to determine the primary uses of certain things, you come to the conclusion that certain popular items are primarily useless and serve mainly to keep emergency rooms in business.
    - drhayes9 14y ago
      Well, I was limiting this to guns, but okay, sure. I'm not sure what your larger point is, though.
- loup-vaillant 14y ago
  What is the primary, if not only, use for a weapon? That's hurting, killing, and threatening. Goals can be eating, revenge, crime deterrence, whatever. But the primary use of a weapon always did come from its ability to harm and kill. I bet most pro-gun Americans would agree with me. They want a weapon to defend themselves. How? By threatening to hurt or kill, of course. They're not going to propose a foam sword contest to someone they deem dangerous to their property, their lives, or their families. Recreational use? It sure counts. But if we suddenly ban weapons in the US, there won't be riots over a hobby. It will be over the ability to threaten with death when you need it for self defence.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > What is the primary, if not only, use for a weapon? What is the primary, if not only, use for a really fast motorcycle? Separating morons from any organs that can be salvaged after that final crash.
lgbr 14y ago
> To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things. I disagree. A gun's primary use for law abiding citizens is that it intimidates things. The most effective way to use a gun is simply to deter crime. You wouldn't say that the reason the United States and the Soviet Union stockpiled nuclear weapons was because they wanted to level each others' cities. It was simply deterrence.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Only with open carry. It's possible that pulling out a gun may defuse a situation, but lots of people seem to think "I'll just wave my gun and it'll stop the people harassing me." You should only pull out a gun if the situation, at that time, is dangerous enough to warrant pulling the trigger.
  - lgbr 14y ago
    A gun doesn't have to be visible to deter crime. Just the possibility of a victim having a gun is plenty of deterrence. I'd much rather burgle an Australian or English home than one in the US, given how many homes in the US have guns.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      This is true. I like people not knowing whether or not I have a gun. It lets me free-ride on other people while greatly reducing the risk of a gun accident in my house.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      If you know a home has guns, aren't you just as likely to burgle it while the occupants are out, probably in order to steal the guns?
      - learc83 14y ago
        Yes, but less likely to burgle it while the occupants are at home. Insurance covers stolen possessions, but you can't replace lives lost in a botched burglary or home invasion.
joshuahedlund 14y ago
Neither risk can be realistically eliminated regardless of your personal assessment of what they're good for. The question is simply whether or not we've reduced the risk enough that society finds the current level more acceptable than the marginal costs of attempting to reduce it even further. The car argument is saying that the risk of guns is already so much lower than cars that it seems unreasonable to think the former is still at an unacceptable level, but not the latter.
nsxwolf 14y ago
Sometimes the only way to stop a criminal trying to kill you is to kill him or her first. To do that you'll need a tool designed to kill things.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Have you considered that the criminal usually has no interest in killing people, and may only be armed because he knows that you may have a gun yourself?
  - nsxwolf 14y ago
    No, I have not considered that, because it makes absolutely no sense. Criminals use guns during crimes because of the power it gives them to subdue and control their victims. Guns also allow them to easily dispose of witnesses after the crime is committed. If the non-criminal population just decides to give up their guns, in hopes that criminals will do the same, the criminals will simply say "thanks".
- grecy 14y ago
  Soon enough you're going to need a nuke if you keep follow that reasoning.
  - nsxwolf 14y ago
    My weapon of choice is the AR-15, a design that hasn't changed much in almost 50 years. It isn't any more deadly now than it was then. Your comment imagines an arms race that doesn't exist.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Yes, guns destroy human beings, that is their purpose. And it is difficult for a lot of people to grapple with the idea that such seemingly fundamentally, some would say, evil devices can be used for good. The comparison with cars is a good one though. Cars are an example of how lethal power exists in the hands of many in society. And that's true to an enormous degree, not just with cars though they are a prime example. Most people have the ability to take the lives of others without a great deal of effort. Imagine what would happen if, say, 1ppm of humanity woke up and decided to do murder that day. There would be a lot of killings. And yet society is still largely peaceful. Because most people can be trusted with the lives of their fellow humans. And it's important to realize how deeply we take that for granted. Something as simple as riding a bus or driving in traffic represents a tremendous trust in our fellow citizens to not murder us, and they trust us not to murder them as well. Firearms do not represent injecting a unique capability for death and injury into society, they're just make that aspect of daily life more blatantly obvious. But just as with cars, knives, fists, pencils, hammers, bricks, fire, and all that most people can be trusted with firearms most of the time. And indeed when firearms are allowed into the hands of citizens of good intent they can be used to thwart crimes quite often. Many rapes and roberies have been stopped by firearms, often just by the mere presence of a firearm (not even counting the deterrent effects). And in some spectacular cases firearms have been used defensively to stop mass murders in their tracks. But these examples tend to be less dramatic than successful mass shootings, so they tend to be less well known. On the whole, the point still stands, it is safer for the average person to own a gun than to own a car. And that is a testament to the trustworthiness of the average citizen, and the degree to which many people take gun ownership seriously and solemnly.
- drhayes9 14y ago
  Thank you for your thoughtful comment on a touchy issue. That is a good point about the comparison with cars. I have been stepping neatly past the trust idea (which applies to computers as well, and I'm a coder). It's a very powerful idea that I haven't thought about enough. But I think firearms do represent a unique capability: how many bricks per minute can you throw? From how far away could you snipe someone with a pencil? I think it's one of degree: assault weapons, high-powered sniper rifles, semi-autos that can be easily modified for full-auto fire... Those weapons are all over a boundary for me, a boundary that the U.S. is too lax with drawing.

derleth 14y ago

> To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things. If you ignore all of the other recreational uses, sure; you can also say that motorcycles only have one use: To kill people who ride them and the people those riders hit.

drhayes9 14y ago
Are you lobbying for the restriction of vehicles? Or are you making a point by analogy with guns that I'm missing?
- derleth 14y ago
  My point is, once you try to determine the primary uses of certain things, you come to the conclusion that certain popular items are primarily useless and serve mainly to keep emergency rooms in business.
  - drhayes9 14y ago
    Well, I was limiting this to guns, but okay, sure. I'm not sure what your larger point is, though.
loup-vaillant 14y ago
What is the primary, if not only, use for a weapon? That's hurting, killing, and threatening. Goals can be eating, revenge, crime deterrence, whatever. But the primary use of a weapon always did come from its ability to harm and kill. I bet most pro-gun Americans would agree with me. They want a weapon to defend themselves. How? By threatening to hurt or kill, of course. They're not going to propose a foam sword contest to someone they deem dangerous to their property, their lives, or their families. Recreational use? It sure counts. But if we suddenly ban weapons in the US, there won't be riots over a hobby. It will be over the ability to threaten with death when you need it for self defence.
- derleth 14y ago
  > What is the primary, if not only, use for a weapon? What is the primary, if not only, use for a really fast motorcycle? Separating morons from any organs that can be salvaged after that final crash.

lgbr 14y ago

> To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things. I disagree. A gun's primary use for law abiding citizens is that it intimidates things. The most effective way to use a gun is simply to deter crime. You wouldn't say that the reason the United States and the Soviet Union stockpiled nuclear weapons was because they wanted to level each others' cities. It was simply deterrence.

danielweber 14y ago
Only with open carry. It's possible that pulling out a gun may defuse a situation, but lots of people seem to think "I'll just wave my gun and it'll stop the people harassing me." You should only pull out a gun if the situation, at that time, is dangerous enough to warrant pulling the trigger.
- lgbr 14y ago
  A gun doesn't have to be visible to deter crime. Just the possibility of a victim having a gun is plenty of deterrence. I'd much rather burgle an Australian or English home than one in the US, given how many homes in the US have guns.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    This is true. I like people not knowing whether or not I have a gun. It lets me free-ride on other people while greatly reducing the risk of a gun accident in my house.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    If you know a home has guns, aren't you just as likely to burgle it while the occupants are out, probably in order to steal the guns?
    - learc83 14y ago
      Yes, but less likely to burgle it while the occupants are at home. Insurance covers stolen possessions, but you can't replace lives lost in a botched burglary or home invasion.

joshuahedlund 14y ago

Neither risk can be realistically eliminated regardless of your personal assessment of what they're good for. The question is simply whether or not we've reduced the risk enough that society finds the current level more acceptable than the marginal costs of attempting to reduce it even further. The car argument is saying that the risk of guns is already so much lower than cars that it seems unreasonable to think the former is still at an unacceptable level, but not the latter.

nsxwolf 14y ago

Sometimes the only way to stop a criminal trying to kill you is to kill him or her first. To do that you'll need a tool designed to kill things.

icebraining 14y ago
Have you considered that the criminal usually has no interest in killing people, and may only be armed because he knows that you may have a gun yourself?
- nsxwolf 14y ago
  No, I have not considered that, because it makes absolutely no sense. Criminals use guns during crimes because of the power it gives them to subdue and control their victims. Guns also allow them to easily dispose of witnesses after the crime is committed. If the non-criminal population just decides to give up their guns, in hopes that criminals will do the same, the criminals will simply say "thanks".
grecy 14y ago
Soon enough you're going to need a nuke if you keep follow that reasoning.
- nsxwolf 14y ago
  My weapon of choice is the AR-15, a design that hasn't changed much in almost 50 years. It isn't any more deadly now than it was then. Your comment imagines an arms race that doesn't exist.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Yes, guns destroy human beings, that is their purpose. And it is difficult for a lot of people to grapple with the idea that such seemingly fundamentally, some would say, evil devices can be used for good. The comparison with cars is a good one though. Cars are an example of how lethal power exists in the hands of many in society. And that's true to an enormous degree, not just with cars though they are a prime example. Most people have the ability to take the lives of others without a great deal of effort. Imagine what would happen if, say, 1ppm of humanity woke up and decided to do murder that day. There would be a lot of killings. And yet society is still largely peaceful. Because most people can be trusted with the lives of their fellow humans. And it's important to realize how deeply we take that for granted. Something as simple as riding a bus or driving in traffic represents a tremendous trust in our fellow citizens to not murder us, and they trust us not to murder them as well. Firearms do not represent injecting a unique capability for death and injury into society, they're just make that aspect of daily life more blatantly obvious. But just as with cars, knives, fists, pencils, hammers, bricks, fire, and all that most people can be trusted with firearms most of the time. And indeed when firearms are allowed into the hands of citizens of good intent they can be used to thwart crimes quite often. Many rapes and roberies have been stopped by firearms, often just by the mere presence of a firearm (not even counting the deterrent effects). And in some spectacular cases firearms have been used defensively to stop mass murders in their tracks. But these examples tend to be less dramatic than successful mass shootings, so they tend to be less well known. On the whole, the point still stands, it is safer for the average person to own a gun than to own a car. And that is a testament to the trustworthiness of the average citizen, and the degree to which many people take gun ownership seriously and solemnly.

drhayes9 14y ago
Thank you for your thoughtful comment on a touchy issue. That is a good point about the comparison with cars. I have been stepping neatly past the trust idea (which applies to computers as well, and I'm a coder). It's a very powerful idea that I haven't thought about enough. But I think firearms do represent a unique capability: how many bricks per minute can you throw? From how far away could you snipe someone with a pencil? I think it's one of degree: assault weapons, high-powered sniper rifles, semi-autos that can be easily modified for full-auto fire... Those weapons are all over a boundary for me, a boundary that the U.S. is too lax with drawing.