6 ms·

It's an interesting analogy. I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people. There, we allow gun us

by tim-kt 1y ago

It's an interesting analogy. I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people. There, we allow gun use, but under stricter conditions. The majority agrees that this is right, so the system works. What is "the police" on the level of countries? There is no majority that agrees that, e. g., the NATO can serve as the police. It feels like on this level, we live in an anarchy with only very few actors who don't really want to live together. So maybe nukes are an option, although I don't like it.

margorczynski 1y ago
> I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people You're naive. The police (or whatever you call it) is meant for inward force projection of the state. Your security is not the main concern. Besides the police works too slowly to truly protect you when SHTF. Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead.
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  > Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead. This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home. I'm countries with virtually no private ownership of guns, it is extraordinarily unlikely to be in life threatening danger in your home.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y ago
    Nobody has knives? Axes? Baseball bats? Where do you live, I wanna come visit. > This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home Citation needed, because I highly doubt you're correct.
    - tsimionescu 1y ago
      People who rob you with baseball bats and axes, and don't even think about the possibility that you'll have a gun, don't feel the need to kill you at any suspicious twitch. The axes and knives and baseball bats are there to have clear superiority, and they know you can't really harm them. So, unless you actually try to fight, you're quite safe from a physical perspective. Conversely, if people with guns think there's a decent chance you have a gun too, they'll be terrified of any move you make and have a high chance of misinterpreting any gesture you make into violence. So there is much higher tension. Of course, there is a possibility that you're being attacked by a crazed murderer - in which case you're probably going to die either way. But this happens vastly, vastly less often that robbery. You can take a look at crime stats from even the poorest European countries. The proof that lack of gun ownership in no way causes more violent crime is evident. Everything I just added above is an explanation of why this happens, but the fact it happens is not up for debate.
- erikerikson 1y ago
  The stability of society and the law based facilitation of peace are absolutely within the mission of police forces and highly facilitative to the prosperity of a society. I was once involved with a project that returned determination of land ownership from people's physical custody to the courts and the resulting drops in assault and homicide rates (for the entire country) was in the double digits over a period of months.
  - andrepd 1y ago
    Wow, super interesting! Where was this if I might ask?
    - erikerikson 1y ago
      Sorry for the delay but this is such a public setting. The governments involved never approved the release of that information.
- IOT_Apprentice 1y ago
  Out of curiosity, where do you live that your perception of life is one of SHTF constantly & unending murder in your city?
  - fionic 1y ago
    Hah ez. Syracuse or Rochester NY my boy. Sounds like it must be nice to live in a bubble and retort at your keyboard.
  - margorczynski 1y ago
    > Out of curiosity, where do you live that your perception of life is one of SHTF constantly & unending murder in your city? If you re-read what I've wrote carefully you can observe I didn't refer once to my lived experience.
LeonB 1y ago
A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does: but not for a simple reason like “because we have the police which is meant to give security to people” A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.” People in such a community lack guns but they do have things like a working public health system, decent education, daily encounters with other people that are positive and so on. The threat of police shootings is not what makes a safe society safe. Constructive, open and fair trade is the equivalent at an international level. Cooperative and trusting. Not staring down the barrel of each other’s guns.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y ago
  > A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does Except this isn't borne out in the data. Look at deeply conservative places where guns are literally everywhere, and you'll see very low crime rates compared to cities with strict gun control. And why? Well, as a criminal, I'd be loathe to try something when there's a good chance the victim is armed. In your perfect community scenario, a single armed criminal would wreak havoc, completely unopposed.
  - achandlerwhite 1y ago
    Sounds more like urban vs rural with respect to crime rates than guns or not.
  - cmrdporcupine 1y ago
    These hypothetical places have "low" crime rates because they have low population density, not because people are armed. Why do Canada and Europe have dramatically lower violent crime rates despite having a mostly unarmed population?
    - t-3 1y ago
      Canada is in no way "mostly unarmed". ~20% of households have a gun. Some countries in Europe also have high ownership rates as well (like Finland).

by tim-kt 1y ago

margorczynski 1y ago

> I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people You're naive. The police (or whatever you call it) is meant for inward force projection of the state. Your security is not the main concern. Besides the police works too slowly to truly protect you when SHTF. Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead.

tsimionescu 1y ago
> Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead. This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home. I'm countries with virtually no private ownership of guns, it is extraordinarily unlikely to be in life threatening danger in your home.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y ago
  Nobody has knives? Axes? Baseball bats? Where do you live, I wanna come visit. > This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home Citation needed, because I highly doubt you're correct.
  - tsimionescu 1y ago
    People who rob you with baseball bats and axes, and don't even think about the possibility that you'll have a gun, don't feel the need to kill you at any suspicious twitch. The axes and knives and baseball bats are there to have clear superiority, and they know you can't really harm them. So, unless you actually try to fight, you're quite safe from a physical perspective. Conversely, if people with guns think there's a decent chance you have a gun too, they'll be terrified of any move you make and have a high chance of misinterpreting any gesture you make into violence. So there is much higher tension. Of course, there is a possibility that you're being attacked by a crazed murderer - in which case you're probably going to die either way. But this happens vastly, vastly less often that robbery. You can take a look at crime stats from even the poorest European countries. The proof that lack of gun ownership in no way causes more violent crime is evident. Everything I just added above is an explanation of why this happens, but the fact it happens is not up for debate.
erikerikson 1y ago
The stability of society and the law based facilitation of peace are absolutely within the mission of police forces and highly facilitative to the prosperity of a society. I was once involved with a project that returned determination of land ownership from people's physical custody to the courts and the resulting drops in assault and homicide rates (for the entire country) was in the double digits over a period of months.
- andrepd 1y ago
  Wow, super interesting! Where was this if I might ask?
  - erikerikson 1y ago
    Sorry for the delay but this is such a public setting. The governments involved never approved the release of that information.
IOT_Apprentice 1y ago
Out of curiosity, where do you live that your perception of life is one of SHTF constantly & unending murder in your city?
- fionic 1y ago
  Hah ez. Syracuse or Rochester NY my boy. Sounds like it must be nice to live in a bubble and retort at your keyboard.
- margorczynski 1y ago
  > Out of curiosity, where do you live that your perception of life is one of SHTF constantly & unending murder in your city? If you re-read what I've wrote carefully you can observe I didn't refer once to my lived experience.

LeonB 1y ago

A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does: but not for a simple reason like “because we have the police which is meant to give security to people” A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.” People in such a community lack guns but they do have things like a working public health system, decent education, daily encounters with other people that are positive and so on. The threat of police shootings is not what makes a safe society safe. Constructive, open and fair trade is the equivalent at an international level. Cooperative and trusting. Not staring down the barrel of each other’s guns.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y ago
> A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does Except this isn't borne out in the data. Look at deeply conservative places where guns are literally everywhere, and you'll see very low crime rates compared to cities with strict gun control. And why? Well, as a criminal, I'd be loathe to try something when there's a good chance the victim is armed. In your perfect community scenario, a single armed criminal would wreak havoc, completely unopposed.
- achandlerwhite 1y ago
  Sounds more like urban vs rural with respect to crime rates than guns or not.
- cmrdporcupine 1y ago
  These hypothetical places have "low" crime rates because they have low population density, not because people are armed. Why do Canada and Europe have dramatically lower violent crime rates despite having a mostly unarmed population?
  - t-3 1y ago
    Canada is in no way "mostly unarmed". ~20% of households have a gun. Some countries in Europe also have high ownership rates as well (like Finland).