4 ms·

> 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 eff

by 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.
jarek 14y ago
> 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. A purpose they are quite clearly failing at. So the question is what, if anything, citizens of the U.S.A. wish to do about the fact that, empirically, legality and availability of guns has not resulted in crime rates comparable to comparable states.
- learc83 14y ago
  That doesn't follow. There are no comparable states with a comparable history, demography, economy, and culture. It's possible that gun ownership deters crime, but that something else unique to the U.S. is causing more crime than gun ownership is countering. The only thing you could possibly do is to compare parts of the US to each other, and in that case you'll find that locations with stricter gun laws have more gun violence. You could conclude that gun laws cause gun violence, but that would be stupid because many times gun laws exist because of gun violence. What's the difference between my conclusion and yours? Concluding that guns cause violence without real hard evidence and subsequently banning them is like using the unproven gateway drug theory to justify locking up people for smoking pot.
  - jarek 14y ago
    Ah, yes, the U.S. exceptionalism. No other country like it! No one else could have an invasive dominant culture, a disadvantaged minority group, large prosperity divides, and a God-given fear of groups of other people (you call it "government"). Oh well. It's no water off my back if you guys are fine with answering my original question with "nothing" and continuing shooting each other up as price of freedom.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      It sounds like the prevalence of gun violence in the US has been significantly overstated in whatever news you have been reading. Taking guns away from communities where violence is rare will not solve the problems with those in which violence is common. As for US exceptionalism, you left out all the pent up emotional and cultural baggage held by some communities that makes them significantly more violent among themselves than the vast majority.

by lgbr 14y ago

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.

jarek 14y ago

> 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. A purpose they are quite clearly failing at. So the question is what, if anything, citizens of the U.S.A. wish to do about the fact that, empirically, legality and availability of guns has not resulted in crime rates comparable to comparable states.

learc83 14y ago
That doesn't follow. There are no comparable states with a comparable history, demography, economy, and culture. It's possible that gun ownership deters crime, but that something else unique to the U.S. is causing more crime than gun ownership is countering. The only thing you could possibly do is to compare parts of the US to each other, and in that case you'll find that locations with stricter gun laws have more gun violence. You could conclude that gun laws cause gun violence, but that would be stupid because many times gun laws exist because of gun violence. What's the difference between my conclusion and yours? Concluding that guns cause violence without real hard evidence and subsequently banning them is like using the unproven gateway drug theory to justify locking up people for smoking pot.
- jarek 14y ago
  Ah, yes, the U.S. exceptionalism. No other country like it! No one else could have an invasive dominant culture, a disadvantaged minority group, large prosperity divides, and a God-given fear of groups of other people (you call it "government"). Oh well. It's no water off my back if you guys are fine with answering my original question with "nothing" and continuing shooting each other up as price of freedom.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    It sounds like the prevalence of gun violence in the US has been significantly overstated in whatever news you have been reading. Taking guns away from communities where violence is rare will not solve the problems with those in which violence is common. As for US exceptionalism, you left out all the pent up emotional and cultural baggage held by some communities that makes them significantly more violent among themselves than the vast majority.