6 ms·

> Gun utility: small For you.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
anon_e-moose 1y ago
Considering the whole world, gun utility for the civilian population is clearly much smaller than car utility. You will also find even in US a higher number of individuals that have at least one car VS number of individuals that have at least one gun. Sure the reverse might be true for a minority, but the majority scenario is out there with plenty of statistical and empirical evidence. I'm neither pro nor anti-gun, just stating facts.
- bluecalm 1y ago
  Yeah but it's about utility of cars but speeding in cars.
- admissionsguy 1y ago
  I am not comparing the relative utility of cars and guns, but questioning the claim that the utility of gun ownership is small.
  - vel0city 1y ago
    If you're not in a warzone or deep in a jungle needing to fend of jaguars the utility of a gun is likely extremely small.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
Assuming you have high utility for guns, what do you use it for? Hunting? I'm no hunter and have never felt like I need a gun.
- peepeepoopoo114 1y ago
  Just as mutually assured destruction brought lasting peace on the international scale, widespread civilian ownership of military weapons has also been a remarkably effective deterrent and safeguard against would-be tyrants across history. If both Karl Marx and the US founding fathers agreed that a well-armed public is important for a lasting civil peace, it's probably a good idea to listen.
  - tfourb 1y ago
    [citation needed] Would-be tyrants get power (and stay in power) by gaining the support of people capable of projecting force and power onto the populace. From the perspective of tyranny, it is irrelevant if their supporters are i.e. the military or a bunch of militia guys who have acquired their guns privately. Source: Many, many civil wars across history. Trying to guard against tyranny by increasing private gun ownership is dumb, because you are simply creating another group of people that would-be tyrants can use to gain and retain power. Actualy tyranny-proofing a society involves building a strong network of institutions (as in laws, civil society, courts, legislative bodies, distributed wealth and sets of norms) that can effectively counteract the attempt of any one group or individual to centralize power. Also: even if you completely disarm a society and armed resistance becomes necessary in the future (for example western and northern European countries under Nazi occupation during WWII), getting access to firearms is usually not the hardest, nor the most important part of building an effective resistance movement. The organizational part and effective operational security is much harder and more important.
    - peepeepoopoo114 1y ago
      All democracies before the current era began as revolutions. Roman plebeians were well armed enough that the state could never become too abusive towards them. English democracy, and the entire modern idea of constitutional democracy itself, came about because the British public happened to be well armed enough with longbows, originally intended for times of war, that they could resist the tyrannical acts of the state and the professional military that it commanded. Some of the most peaceful and healthiest democracies in the world are also the most heavily armed: look at Switzerland for an example. The entire point of widespread civilian ownership of military weapons is that they can serve as a deterrent so that no tyrants, whether in the government or another private faction, can ever wield unassailable power over the masses, and that the weapons themselves never have to be used. Civil institutions can be captured over time by corrupt interests, but it's quite difficult to capture an empowered public.
- blincoln 1y ago
  I'm guessing you've never lived in a rural area? * Protection against aggressive wild animals. * Protection against aggresive humans. This often applies elsewhere, but becomes less and less optional the further away law enforcement is. * Arguably more humane way of killing pests than poison or most types of lethal trap.
  - timeon 1y ago
    I lived mostly in rural areas but this still sounds too wild. Are US rural areas so dangerous? Especially aggressive humans? I've newer felt that I need the gun to protect myself, but than again I do not live in a place where 'aggressive humans' could easily[0] have a gun. [0] As it is harder to obtain gun on illegal market when it is harder to obtain one on legal market.
    - SnazzyUncle 1y ago
      Most of the time I don't need a puncture repair kit / spare inner tube when cycling, but when I have a puncture I really need it. You don't feel the need for something like a gun for self defence. However if/when you do need to defend yourself then your opinion will quickly change.
      - poincaredisk 1y ago
        Except it's the other way around? Some people here claim that they do feel the need for a gun. However, if that's true, then it's surprising that in most counties with stricter gun (i.e. most counties) laws don't agree.
        SnazzyUncle 1y ago
        No it isn't the other way around. Some young men (in the UK) in high crime areas will carry them illegally because it makes them feel safer. UK has strict gun and knife laws. https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/london-knife-crime-young-people-20496355 https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/london-knife-crim... https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/what-young-people-say-about-knife-crime https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/what-young-people-say-abou... https://theconversation.com/why-so-many-young-british-men-are-choosing-to-carry-knives-84385 https://theconversation.com/why-so-many-young-british-men-ar...
- baud147258 1y ago
  > what do you use it for? recreational shooting. Though that's not exactly high utility

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Considering the whole world, gun utility for the civilian population is clearly much smaller than car utility. You will also find even in US a higher number of individuals that have at least one car VS number of individuals that have at least one gun. Sure the reverse might be true for a minority, but the majority scenario is out there with plenty of statistical and empirical evidence. I'm neither pro nor anti-gun, just stating facts.

bluecalm 1y ago
Yeah but it's about utility of cars but speeding in cars.
admissionsguy 1y ago
I am not comparing the relative utility of cars and guns, but questioning the claim that the utility of gun ownership is small.
- vel0city 1y ago
  If you're not in a warzone or deep in a jungle needing to fend of jaguars the utility of a gun is likely extremely small.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

Assuming you have high utility for guns, what do you use it for? Hunting? I'm no hunter and have never felt like I need a gun.

peepeepoopoo114 1y ago
Just as mutually assured destruction brought lasting peace on the international scale, widespread civilian ownership of military weapons has also been a remarkably effective deterrent and safeguard against would-be tyrants across history. If both Karl Marx and the US founding fathers agreed that a well-armed public is important for a lasting civil peace, it's probably a good idea to listen.
- tfourb 1y ago
  [citation needed] Would-be tyrants get power (and stay in power) by gaining the support of people capable of projecting force and power onto the populace. From the perspective of tyranny, it is irrelevant if their supporters are i.e. the military or a bunch of militia guys who have acquired their guns privately. Source: Many, many civil wars across history. Trying to guard against tyranny by increasing private gun ownership is dumb, because you are simply creating another group of people that would-be tyrants can use to gain and retain power. Actualy tyranny-proofing a society involves building a strong network of institutions (as in laws, civil society, courts, legislative bodies, distributed wealth and sets of norms) that can effectively counteract the attempt of any one group or individual to centralize power. Also: even if you completely disarm a society and armed resistance becomes necessary in the future (for example western and northern European countries under Nazi occupation during WWII), getting access to firearms is usually not the hardest, nor the most important part of building an effective resistance movement. The organizational part and effective operational security is much harder and more important.
  - peepeepoopoo114 1y ago
    All democracies before the current era began as revolutions. Roman plebeians were well armed enough that the state could never become too abusive towards them. English democracy, and the entire modern idea of constitutional democracy itself, came about because the British public happened to be well armed enough with longbows, originally intended for times of war, that they could resist the tyrannical acts of the state and the professional military that it commanded. Some of the most peaceful and healthiest democracies in the world are also the most heavily armed: look at Switzerland for an example. The entire point of widespread civilian ownership of military weapons is that they can serve as a deterrent so that no tyrants, whether in the government or another private faction, can ever wield unassailable power over the masses, and that the weapons themselves never have to be used. Civil institutions can be captured over time by corrupt interests, but it's quite difficult to capture an empowered public.
blincoln 1y ago
I'm guessing you've never lived in a rural area? * Protection against aggressive wild animals. * Protection against aggresive humans. This often applies elsewhere, but becomes less and less optional the further away law enforcement is. * Arguably more humane way of killing pests than poison or most types of lethal trap.
- timeon 1y ago
  I lived mostly in rural areas but this still sounds too wild. Are US rural areas so dangerous? Especially aggressive humans? I've newer felt that I need the gun to protect myself, but than again I do not live in a place where 'aggressive humans' could easily[0] have a gun. [0] As it is harder to obtain gun on illegal market when it is harder to obtain one on legal market.
  - SnazzyUncle 1y ago
    Most of the time I don't need a puncture repair kit / spare inner tube when cycling, but when I have a puncture I really need it. You don't feel the need for something like a gun for self defence. However if/when you do need to defend yourself then your opinion will quickly change.
    - poincaredisk 1y ago
      Except it's the other way around? Some people here claim that they do feel the need for a gun. However, if that's true, then it's surprising that in most counties with stricter gun (i.e. most counties) laws don't agree.
      - SnazzyUncle 1y ago
        No it isn't the other way around. Some young men (in the UK) in high crime areas will carry them illegally because it makes them feel safer. UK has strict gun and knife laws. https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/london-knife-crime-young-people-20496355 https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/london-knife-crim... https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/what-young-people-say-about-knife-crime https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/what-young-people-say-abou... https://theconversation.com/why-so-many-young-british-men-are-choosing-to-carry-knives-84385 https://theconversation.com/why-so-many-young-british-men-ar...
baud147258 1y ago
> what do you use it for? recreational shooting. Though that's not exactly high utility