3 ms·

That's like observing that we could probably solve the issue of people saying mean things on the internet by requiring ID to access it. You have to consider any

That's like observing that we could probably solve the issue of people saying mean things on the internet by requiring ID to access it. You have to consider any expected negative consequences as well as if you'd be violating any rights.

LPisGood 8mo ago
We’ve seen other highly developed countries operate just fine without arming their citizenry to the teeth.
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  We've also seen it go wrong plenty of times. They can do them and we can do us I figure; I'm quite happy with my gun rights thanks. There are highly developed countries that tightly regulate speech and network access relative to most of the west. Does that mean adopting an ID requirement to post on Twitter coupled with anti hate speech laws would be an obviously good thing?
  - LPisGood 8mo ago
    If tweets were a leading cause of death in children we should probably at least consider making it harder to tweet.
    - fc417fc802 8mo ago
      It was an arbitrary example. Try to see past the politically charged topic to the actual analogy that I'm attempting to make. The point of my original reply wasn't about the position being expressed but rather the stated reasoning. If your logic amounts to "Y could solve X therefore we should be doing Y" notice that when applied to other things that line of reasoning doesn't seem to hold up very well. If you want to have a discussion about child mortality versus tail risks such as elections being suspended or the government murdering protesters a la Iran that's fine but please realize that wasn't the point of my earlier reply.
- EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago
  I don’t know if there is any precedent from taking away hundreds of millions of guns from an armed country actually
  - LPisGood 8mo ago
    Australia de-armed pretty successfully.
    - defrost 8mo ago
      Australia has more guns now, and more guns per capita, than it did at the time it almost unified all gun laws. It didn't "de-arm" - it brought all states and territories into near alignment on gun regulation. If you're interested I can link to good footage of my actual IRL neighbour shooting 24x24 inch targets at 5,000 yards, here in Australia. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE Alternatively you might be interested in Australian footage of feral control, taking down 800 oversized wild pigs in 4 hours from a helicopter.
      - markdown 8mo ago
        It significantly de-armed. Most importantly, Australia removed "self-defence" as a reason to own firearms. You have to be a farmer, hunter, or belong to a shooting club. While the number of guns increased, the number of gun owners dropped. And the new regulations enacted this year drop the number of guns one can own even more. There was a near-total ban on "military style" guns. See how the terrorists at the massacre last year were limited by the type of guns they had access to, only managing to kill 15 despite having all the time in the world. An Ar-15 or similar weapon could have been used to slaughter that 15 in under 15 seconds.
        defrost 8mo ago
        > It significantly de-armed In the sense that there are more private registered guns than ever before in Australia, sure. > Most importantly, Australia removed "self-defence" as a reason to own firearms. More importantly, it unified gun laws - before the Port Arthur shooting, Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, probably the Australian Capital Territory were all unregulated. Unregulated states with no border control effectively made the entire Federation of States unregulated. Regulated states, at least the ones that I lived in prior to Port Arthur, didn't have "self defence" as a reason for owning gun - it was always about hunting, feral control, specific security (regularly carrying money) etc. The last I checked, the emphasis was more on where you intended to use / carry a gun; shooting club (common), carry for security in street (rare), rural (property owner or have letter of authority to shoot from a property owner). > There was a near-total ban on "military style" guns. Sure .. they serve no real purpose, the only activity that requires high fire rates and larger magazines is pig shooting, maybe camel control, and rat shooting. Rats can be shot with professional BB guns .. a better choice when shooting in sheds, silos, etc - no spark or risk of punching holes in tin walls. If you're pig shooting in bulk, that's a contract shooting licence.
- mindcrime 8mo ago
  > We’ve seen other highly developed countries operate just fine without arming their citizenry to the teeth. Good for them. As an American, I'm quite happy with our Second Amendment rights, I'm not looking to roll that back in the slightest. And if anything, with the recent rise of the fascist authoritarian regime that we've seen, I'd think that maybe a whole lot of "anti gun" people here would be well on their way to becoming "formerly anti gun" people.
  - NikolaNovak 8mo ago
    Can you tell me more? As an individual person, having right to bear guns doesn't seem to have any impact or saving powers against the authoritarian regime. What scenarios relating to authoritarian regimes (be specific) do you find having a gun at home would help with?
    - fc417fc802 8mo ago
      Aside from the obvious (being ready and able to form an armed resistance) there's the deterrent. When you know that your populace has certain options available to them that will inform your actions.
    - mindcrime 8mo ago
      > As an individual person, having right to bear guns doesn't seem to have any impact or saving powers against the authoritarian regime. See my reply above. But loosely speaking, you are correct when looking at things from a purely individual point of view. No one of us is going to topple an authoritarian regime by ourselves. But I don't think that was ever the point. It's an assemblage of large numbers of like-minded armed individuals who can effect change. And just to be clear... I'm a peaceful person at heart (but not a pacifist). I don't want blood-shed, and I don't want to see an armed uprising or a civil war on many levels. But I'd at least like to see many of my fellow #2A advocates being more vocal and visible about stating our displeasure with the current environment, and our willingness in principle to take action if/when it becomes clear that it is necessary. That, ideally, in and of itself reduces the need for actual violence, by acting as a strong deterrent.
  - 8mo ago
VHRanger 8mo ago
Youre aware that the rest of the planet have stricter gun laws and the American problems are fairly unique? This is even after controlling for things that exacerbate crime like high economic inequality. For instance, Brazil [1] (a much poorer and more unequal country than the USA) has lower murder rate than a lot of cities now than the USA. The murder rate of Rio seems to be about on the level of Houston (17/100k), or about a third of Detroit (47). But Rio clearly has __a lot more crime__ than Houston. It's palpable when you're in either city. Even with the Favelas and heavily armed gangs, the murder rate is comparatively low because *normal people dont have guns at nearly the same rate*. And it shouldn't take a leap of faith to figure out that higher gun ownership leads to more deaths. Guns are the one tool we have intentionally made to cause death. 1. I'm aware that Brazil has a higher murder rate, but comparing cities is a better pick. The northeast of Brazil is in another league than anywhere in the USA in economic conditions; it's not comparable. The only city I can think of with USA levels of economic development would be Florianopolis (murder rate 7/100k) or maybe Balneario Camboriu, or some parts of Sao Paulo like Vila Olimpia.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Hikikomori 8mo ago
    A map over poor people would likely look the same.
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      Which shows how ridiculous it is to assign that as the cause, doesn't it? It's almost as if pointing to a lot of guns or black people in one spot doesn't show that's why murders are happening, only allows you to tie statistical correlation.
  - VHRanger 8mo ago
    Ah, some egregious misuse of statistics! Murder is a byproduct of crime. Crime is, largely, downstream of economic conditions with some obvious caveats. New Hampshire has the 2nd lowest crime rate of the USA states. You could make the same argument for, say, Switzerland (high gun ownership but no crime/murder). But no one would be surprised if you had high gun ownership in Monaco. Similarly for the ethnic argument you're trying to make: Majority black neighbourhoods in the USA tend to be poor. They also tend to be near more affluent places. Unlike poor white neighbourhoods, which are on average more rural in the USA. Being poor, and being next to rich people, and being excluded from legal increases of becoming rich, will increase crime. This should be obvious. Brazil has famously Favelas right next to wealthy areas and has a persistent crime problem for example. --- In short, it's really incredible how far some Americans will go to deny the obvious truth: *gun prevalence increases deadly crime*. Sure, some cultural factors will increase crime/violence on the margin. But the reason y'all have a bunch of shootings is that you have a bunch of guns to do shootings with. That simple.

LPisGood 8mo ago

We’ve seen other highly developed countries operate just fine without arming their citizenry to the teeth.

fc417fc802 8mo ago
We've also seen it go wrong plenty of times. They can do them and we can do us I figure; I'm quite happy with my gun rights thanks. There are highly developed countries that tightly regulate speech and network access relative to most of the west. Does that mean adopting an ID requirement to post on Twitter coupled with anti hate speech laws would be an obviously good thing?
- LPisGood 8mo ago
  If tweets were a leading cause of death in children we should probably at least consider making it harder to tweet.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    It was an arbitrary example. Try to see past the politically charged topic to the actual analogy that I'm attempting to make. The point of my original reply wasn't about the position being expressed but rather the stated reasoning. If your logic amounts to "Y could solve X therefore we should be doing Y" notice that when applied to other things that line of reasoning doesn't seem to hold up very well. If you want to have a discussion about child mortality versus tail risks such as elections being suspended or the government murdering protesters a la Iran that's fine but please realize that wasn't the point of my earlier reply.
EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago
I don’t know if there is any precedent from taking away hundreds of millions of guns from an armed country actually
- LPisGood 8mo ago
  Australia de-armed pretty successfully.
  - defrost 8mo ago
    Australia has more guns now, and more guns per capita, than it did at the time it almost unified all gun laws. It didn't "de-arm" - it brought all states and territories into near alignment on gun regulation. If you're interested I can link to good footage of my actual IRL neighbour shooting 24x24 inch targets at 5,000 yards, here in Australia. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE Alternatively you might be interested in Australian footage of feral control, taking down 800 oversized wild pigs in 4 hours from a helicopter.
    - markdown 8mo ago
      It significantly de-armed. Most importantly, Australia removed "self-defence" as a reason to own firearms. You have to be a farmer, hunter, or belong to a shooting club. While the number of guns increased, the number of gun owners dropped. And the new regulations enacted this year drop the number of guns one can own even more. There was a near-total ban on "military style" guns. See how the terrorists at the massacre last year were limited by the type of guns they had access to, only managing to kill 15 despite having all the time in the world. An Ar-15 or similar weapon could have been used to slaughter that 15 in under 15 seconds.
      - defrost 8mo ago
        > It significantly de-armed In the sense that there are more private registered guns than ever before in Australia, sure. > Most importantly, Australia removed "self-defence" as a reason to own firearms. More importantly, it unified gun laws - before the Port Arthur shooting, Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, probably the Australian Capital Territory were all unregulated. Unregulated states with no border control effectively made the entire Federation of States unregulated. Regulated states, at least the ones that I lived in prior to Port Arthur, didn't have "self defence" as a reason for owning gun - it was always about hunting, feral control, specific security (regularly carrying money) etc. The last I checked, the emphasis was more on where you intended to use / carry a gun; shooting club (common), carry for security in street (rare), rural (property owner or have letter of authority to shoot from a property owner). > There was a near-total ban on "military style" guns. Sure .. they serve no real purpose, the only activity that requires high fire rates and larger magazines is pig shooting, maybe camel control, and rat shooting. Rats can be shot with professional BB guns .. a better choice when shooting in sheds, silos, etc - no spark or risk of punching holes in tin walls. If you're pig shooting in bulk, that's a contract shooting licence.
mindcrime 8mo ago
> We’ve seen other highly developed countries operate just fine without arming their citizenry to the teeth. Good for them. As an American, I'm quite happy with our Second Amendment rights, I'm not looking to roll that back in the slightest. And if anything, with the recent rise of the fascist authoritarian regime that we've seen, I'd think that maybe a whole lot of "anti gun" people here would be well on their way to becoming "formerly anti gun" people.
- NikolaNovak 8mo ago
  Can you tell me more? As an individual person, having right to bear guns doesn't seem to have any impact or saving powers against the authoritarian regime. What scenarios relating to authoritarian regimes (be specific) do you find having a gun at home would help with?
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    Aside from the obvious (being ready and able to form an armed resistance) there's the deterrent. When you know that your populace has certain options available to them that will inform your actions.
  - mindcrime 8mo ago
    > As an individual person, having right to bear guns doesn't seem to have any impact or saving powers against the authoritarian regime. See my reply above. But loosely speaking, you are correct when looking at things from a purely individual point of view. No one of us is going to topple an authoritarian regime by ourselves. But I don't think that was ever the point. It's an assemblage of large numbers of like-minded armed individuals who can effect change. And just to be clear... I'm a peaceful person at heart (but not a pacifist). I don't want blood-shed, and I don't want to see an armed uprising or a civil war on many levels. But I'd at least like to see many of my fellow #2A advocates being more vocal and visible about stating our displeasure with the current environment, and our willingness in principle to take action if/when it becomes clear that it is necessary. That, ideally, in and of itself reduces the need for actual violence, by acting as a strong deterrent.
- 8mo ago

VHRanger 8mo ago

Youre aware that the rest of the planet have stricter gun laws and the American problems are fairly unique? This is even after controlling for things that exacerbate crime like high economic inequality. For instance, Brazil [1] (a much poorer and more unequal country than the USA) has lower murder rate than a lot of cities now than the USA. The murder rate of Rio seems to be about on the level of Houston (17/100k), or about a third of Detroit (47). But Rio clearly has __a lot more crime__ than Houston. It's palpable when you're in either city. Even with the Favelas and heavily armed gangs, the murder rate is comparatively low because *normal people dont have guns at nearly the same rate*. And it shouldn't take a leap of faith to figure out that higher gun ownership leads to more deaths. Guns are the one tool we have intentionally made to cause death. 1. I'm aware that Brazil has a higher murder rate, but comparing cities is a better pick. The northeast of Brazil is in another league than anywhere in the USA in economic conditions; it's not comparable. The only city I can think of with USA levels of economic development would be Florianopolis (murder rate 7/100k) or maybe Balneario Camboriu, or some parts of Sao Paulo like Vila Olimpia.

mothballed 8mo ago
[flagged]
- Hikikomori 8mo ago
  A map over poor people would likely look the same.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    Which shows how ridiculous it is to assign that as the cause, doesn't it? It's almost as if pointing to a lot of guns or black people in one spot doesn't show that's why murders are happening, only allows you to tie statistical correlation.
- VHRanger 8mo ago
  Ah, some egregious misuse of statistics! Murder is a byproduct of crime. Crime is, largely, downstream of economic conditions with some obvious caveats. New Hampshire has the 2nd lowest crime rate of the USA states. You could make the same argument for, say, Switzerland (high gun ownership but no crime/murder). But no one would be surprised if you had high gun ownership in Monaco. Similarly for the ethnic argument you're trying to make: Majority black neighbourhoods in the USA tend to be poor. They also tend to be near more affluent places. Unlike poor white neighbourhoods, which are on average more rural in the USA. Being poor, and being next to rich people, and being excluded from legal increases of becoming rich, will increase crime. This should be obvious. Brazil has famously Favelas right next to wealthy areas and has a persistent crime problem for example. --- In short, it's really incredible how far some Americans will go to deny the obvious truth: *gun prevalence increases deadly crime*. Sure, some cultural factors will increase crime/violence on the margin. But the reason y'all have a bunch of shootings is that you have a bunch of guns to do shootings with. That simple.