4 ms·

A gun-free zone is not such a good idea, much like an encryption-free zone would be, or an alcohol-free zone (the latter has been tried). I would rather go for

by nine_k 7mo ago

A gun-free zone is not such a good idea, much like an encryption-free zone would be, or an alcohol-free zone (the latter has been tried). I would rather go for Swiss-stye mandatory gun training, and keeping a gun in (almost) every home. But, like the Swiss, I would require not just storing the gun in a certified safe box, but also providing an ID + a proof of mental sanity, and registering the gun. That would raise a much larger wave of protest though, both from the "left" and the "right". Even though, IMHO, it's the only sane way.

marcus_holmes 7mo ago
I have never lived in a country where people are allowed to keep guns. That scares the crap out of me. Not just because of random strangers. I went through a mental health crisis, and there was a dark time where if I had had a gun I would be dead now. No amount of lockers or safe boxes or mental health tests would have saved me from that gun. And wtf do you need a gun for anyway? I have never, not once, been in a situation where having a gun would have improved it. Why do you think giving everyone guns would be a good thing?
- engineer_22 7mo ago
  I'm sorry you went through a difficult time of your life, I can relate. I would like to point out a gun doesn't make destroying oneself any easier. They are heavy and cold and they have a particular smell, they taste like metal, and the hole in the end of the barrel so strongly implies destruction that even pointing it at oneself carries incredible gravity. Many people that purchase a gun for this purpose abandon the idea when they have the object in their hands. Before crystallizing strong opinions about guns I suggest you spend some time learning to wield them. It's trivial to travel to a place that embraces guns and engage in a training session. A lot of people are surprised that the reality of it is very different than they imagined. It's not like in the movies. Kind of like how driving a car is not like in the movies. I have many friends who have no interest in guns who I have introduced to shooting, and even though they have not changed their opinions they told me they enjoyed the experience. With enough familiarity guns are not feared, but respected, similar to driving a car makes first time drivers nervous. We are surrounded daily by miriad tools we take for granted daily that have awesome lethal power within them, we'd all be wise to remember.
  - marcus_holmes 7mo ago
    I joined the cadets at school. I've shot pistols, rifles, even a Bren machine gun, which was fun. I'm under no illusions that guns in movies are realistic ;) edit: and the statistics on gun suicide contradict your point, which I missed earlier [0] Which partly drives my curiousity around this (and I realise that my tone on the original question was harsher than I meant - this is genuine curiosity). I just cannot envisage a situation where a gun would improve matters. I've been in a few fights, have some scars. Even in those situations, having a gun would not have improved the situation, and might very well have killed me. So, yeah, I'm really curious about why you think making guns more widely available would be good? [0] https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2023-gun-deaths-suicide-by-firearm-at-record-levels-for-third-straight-year https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2...
  - Ferret7446 7mo ago
    Well said, I will also add that the source of all fear is ignorance, and that includes everything, from guns to disease to imaginary monsters. You do not cure it through avoidance, quite the opposite.
    - cindyllm 7mo ago
      [dead]
    - imtringued 7mo ago
      I'm not sure what the goal here is other than to give people, who probably shouldn't have guns, even more guns.
- nine_k 7mo ago
  > And wtf do you need a gun for anyway? One of the reasons that Switzerland, a country te size of Bay Area, with 9M current population, has not been overrun by the many wars in Europe for last 200 years is that every citizen is expected to fight back, without formally joining a military force for that. All men have to serve in the military for a couple of months to get the basic training, obtain and master a small arms weapon, and keep it where they live. (The ammo is not provided though.) Every few years the citizens should show up for several weeks of refresher training. This is very close to the idea that an armed population is a backstop against tyranny, but much better implemented. Per-capita firearm-related deaths in Switzerland are 7 times lower than in the US, and firearm-related homicide rate, 20 times lower. Truth be told, firearm ownership per capita is still about 4 times lower in Switzerland. Maybe they also are doing something more right with mentally ill people, who in the US often receive little help.
  - marcus_holmes 7mo ago
    > This is very close to the idea that an armed population is a backstop against tyranny, but much better implemented. The last few months have disproved this completely. Literal plain-clothes masked thugs seizing people off the streets en masse, and there have only been a handful of cases of armed civilians resisting. And I disagree that Switzerland preserved itself during WW2 because the forces that stomped all over the professional armies of Europe are afraid of an armed civilian population. That just doesn't make sense.
  - Orygin 7mo ago
    > has not been overrun by the many wars in Europe for last 200 years is that every citizen is expected to fight back Lol this is so gun-brained, even for an American. Switzerland has not been "overrun" because they are in the freaking mountains. Gun or not, good luck invading mountain cliffs.
    - nine_k 7mo ago
      Napoleon somehow did not have very much trouble doing just that back in the day. But it's of course not limited to small arms distributed among the population. There are many more preparations done in advance, like rocks prepared to block roads if an explosive charge is detonated. Same with various bridges and railroad choke points. There's a large network of shelters and bunkers, kept in a good shape. Etc, etc. The point is not that a huge army (like Hitler's in 1940) would not be able to overrun Swiss resistance. The point is that the cost of such an invasion would be prohibitively high. It serves as a good deterrent.
- scarecrowbob 7mo ago
  Just because you seem genuinely curious I will say this: Yeah, it scares the crap out of me too. I'm queer and very far to the left politically, and my neighbors all have a lot of guns and if you listen to what they say they think that queer leftists deserve to be murdered just out of principle. I am not under any illusion that firearms make any situation with the government better; I have been assaulted by DHS (pepper spray) and in that situation I am certain that going from being "non-compliant" to "violent" would result in being murdered by the government in short, short order. However, I am very worried about situations where my neighbors (who are all very well armed and very far to the right and very excited about 'interruptions in regular government') become violent. There are many, many historical and current precedents for that situation. So although the best situation would be unilateral disarmament, that isn't going to happen in the rural west of the US. All that said, what do you think my position is? Owning "sporting rifles" and training on self-defense with my cadre of trans folks and anarchists seems to be the more realistic strategy than just hoping the US doesn't get suddenly worse, especially given the path it has been taking at the federal level. Personally, I'd much prefer to be running around playing with my ham radios but here we are.
  - marcus_holmes 7mo ago
    Hey, my sympathies on your plight :( I don't know what I'd do in a similar situation. Again, I don't see how carrying a gun could improve the situation, except possibly that if everyone on the left was also carrying then the folks on the right might get scared and begin to think more rationally about gun control. Statistically, though, you're safer than they are. Guns are much more likely to kill their owners than anyone else [0], so while it's obviously scary, maybe the thought that your neighbours are less likely to kill you than themselves or each other brings some comfort? [0] https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/160/10/929/140858 https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/160/10/929/140...
    - abeyer 7mo ago
      > Guns are much more likely to kill their owners than anyone else [0] That article says no such thing, despite people often claiming it does.
linksnapzz 7mo ago
I'm fascinated by the concept of "proof of sanity". I suppose that when dealing with the Swiss, this might be an easier task than in the US.
lynndotpy 7mo ago
> a proof of mental sanity A "proof of mental sanity" would be a far more concerning overreach than 3D printer bans or gun bans, especially as we see things which are mandatory in a society become something tantamount to personhood. I don't really know how one would even envision implementing such a thing.
- nine_k 7mo ago
  Can you get a driver's license if you're visibly insane? The same standard should apply to getting a gun. A gun is comparably lethal.
  - lynndotpy 7mo ago
    That is different than the proposed test for sanity.
    - nine_k 7mo ago
      Is a proof of lack of insanity a proof of sanity?
      - RugnirViking 7mo ago
        are you aware of the history of mental institutions and insanity charges being used to suppress political dissidents around the world? Most notably in the USSR but the west has also done this sort of thing.
      - lynndotpy 7mo ago
        To start with, "visibly insane" is a ludicrous idea. Further, yes, you can get a license despite being "visibly insane". Some people consider it insane to believe in a deity, to not to, to smoke cigarettes, to have dyed hair, to have an electric car, to have a lime car, to own a Nissan, etc. During my test, the tester said nobody should drive if they hadn't gotten 10 hours of sleep, and I admitted I had only had six or seven. I still got my license. Interpreted generously, maybe some small percentage of "insane people" are visibly so. Even then, looking at someone is not a proof of a lack of sanity. Sanity isn't a thing you can test for, it's definitely not something the government should test for. To make the implied question explicit: How do you envision positively testing for sanity? How would you feel if this test were implemented in 1940, 1900, 1860, 1820, etc? Would your feelings about that differ by the inclination of the politicians in power?

by nine_k 7mo ago

marcus_holmes 7mo ago

I have never lived in a country where people are allowed to keep guns. That scares the crap out of me. Not just because of random strangers. I went through a mental health crisis, and there was a dark time where if I had had a gun I would be dead now. No amount of lockers or safe boxes or mental health tests would have saved me from that gun. And wtf do you need a gun for anyway? I have never, not once, been in a situation where having a gun would have improved it. Why do you think giving everyone guns would be a good thing?

engineer_22 7mo ago
I'm sorry you went through a difficult time of your life, I can relate. I would like to point out a gun doesn't make destroying oneself any easier. They are heavy and cold and they have a particular smell, they taste like metal, and the hole in the end of the barrel so strongly implies destruction that even pointing it at oneself carries incredible gravity. Many people that purchase a gun for this purpose abandon the idea when they have the object in their hands. Before crystallizing strong opinions about guns I suggest you spend some time learning to wield them. It's trivial to travel to a place that embraces guns and engage in a training session. A lot of people are surprised that the reality of it is very different than they imagined. It's not like in the movies. Kind of like how driving a car is not like in the movies. I have many friends who have no interest in guns who I have introduced to shooting, and even though they have not changed their opinions they told me they enjoyed the experience. With enough familiarity guns are not feared, but respected, similar to driving a car makes first time drivers nervous. We are surrounded daily by miriad tools we take for granted daily that have awesome lethal power within them, we'd all be wise to remember.
- marcus_holmes 7mo ago
  I joined the cadets at school. I've shot pistols, rifles, even a Bren machine gun, which was fun. I'm under no illusions that guns in movies are realistic ;) edit: and the statistics on gun suicide contradict your point, which I missed earlier [0] Which partly drives my curiousity around this (and I realise that my tone on the original question was harsher than I meant - this is genuine curiosity). I just cannot envisage a situation where a gun would improve matters. I've been in a few fights, have some scars. Even in those situations, having a gun would not have improved the situation, and might very well have killed me. So, yeah, I'm really curious about why you think making guns more widely available would be good? [0] https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2023-gun-deaths-suicide-by-firearm-at-record-levels-for-third-straight-year https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2...
- Ferret7446 7mo ago
  Well said, I will also add that the source of all fear is ignorance, and that includes everything, from guns to disease to imaginary monsters. You do not cure it through avoidance, quite the opposite.
  - cindyllm 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - imtringued 7mo ago
    I'm not sure what the goal here is other than to give people, who probably shouldn't have guns, even more guns.
nine_k 7mo ago
> And wtf do you need a gun for anyway? One of the reasons that Switzerland, a country te size of Bay Area, with 9M current population, has not been overrun by the many wars in Europe for last 200 years is that every citizen is expected to fight back, without formally joining a military force for that. All men have to serve in the military for a couple of months to get the basic training, obtain and master a small arms weapon, and keep it where they live. (The ammo is not provided though.) Every few years the citizens should show up for several weeks of refresher training. This is very close to the idea that an armed population is a backstop against tyranny, but much better implemented. Per-capita firearm-related deaths in Switzerland are 7 times lower than in the US, and firearm-related homicide rate, 20 times lower. Truth be told, firearm ownership per capita is still about 4 times lower in Switzerland. Maybe they also are doing something more right with mentally ill people, who in the US often receive little help.
- marcus_holmes 7mo ago
  > This is very close to the idea that an armed population is a backstop against tyranny, but much better implemented. The last few months have disproved this completely. Literal plain-clothes masked thugs seizing people off the streets en masse, and there have only been a handful of cases of armed civilians resisting. And I disagree that Switzerland preserved itself during WW2 because the forces that stomped all over the professional armies of Europe are afraid of an armed civilian population. That just doesn't make sense.
- Orygin 7mo ago
  > has not been overrun by the many wars in Europe for last 200 years is that every citizen is expected to fight back Lol this is so gun-brained, even for an American. Switzerland has not been "overrun" because they are in the freaking mountains. Gun or not, good luck invading mountain cliffs.
  - nine_k 7mo ago
    Napoleon somehow did not have very much trouble doing just that back in the day. But it's of course not limited to small arms distributed among the population. There are many more preparations done in advance, like rocks prepared to block roads if an explosive charge is detonated. Same with various bridges and railroad choke points. There's a large network of shelters and bunkers, kept in a good shape. Etc, etc. The point is not that a huge army (like Hitler's in 1940) would not be able to overrun Swiss resistance. The point is that the cost of such an invasion would be prohibitively high. It serves as a good deterrent.
scarecrowbob 7mo ago
Just because you seem genuinely curious I will say this: Yeah, it scares the crap out of me too. I'm queer and very far to the left politically, and my neighbors all have a lot of guns and if you listen to what they say they think that queer leftists deserve to be murdered just out of principle. I am not under any illusion that firearms make any situation with the government better; I have been assaulted by DHS (pepper spray) and in that situation I am certain that going from being "non-compliant" to "violent" would result in being murdered by the government in short, short order. However, I am very worried about situations where my neighbors (who are all very well armed and very far to the right and very excited about 'interruptions in regular government') become violent. There are many, many historical and current precedents for that situation. So although the best situation would be unilateral disarmament, that isn't going to happen in the rural west of the US. All that said, what do you think my position is? Owning "sporting rifles" and training on self-defense with my cadre of trans folks and anarchists seems to be the more realistic strategy than just hoping the US doesn't get suddenly worse, especially given the path it has been taking at the federal level. Personally, I'd much prefer to be running around playing with my ham radios but here we are.
- marcus_holmes 7mo ago
  Hey, my sympathies on your plight :( I don't know what I'd do in a similar situation. Again, I don't see how carrying a gun could improve the situation, except possibly that if everyone on the left was also carrying then the folks on the right might get scared and begin to think more rationally about gun control. Statistically, though, you're safer than they are. Guns are much more likely to kill their owners than anyone else [0], so while it's obviously scary, maybe the thought that your neighbours are less likely to kill you than themselves or each other brings some comfort? [0] https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/160/10/929/140858 https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/160/10/929/140...
  - abeyer 7mo ago
    > Guns are much more likely to kill their owners than anyone else [0] That article says no such thing, despite people often claiming it does.

linksnapzz 7mo ago

I'm fascinated by the concept of "proof of sanity". I suppose that when dealing with the Swiss, this might be an easier task than in the US.

lynndotpy 7mo ago

> a proof of mental sanity A "proof of mental sanity" would be a far more concerning overreach than 3D printer bans or gun bans, especially as we see things which are mandatory in a society become something tantamount to personhood. I don't really know how one would even envision implementing such a thing.

nine_k 7mo ago
Can you get a driver's license if you're visibly insane? The same standard should apply to getting a gun. A gun is comparably lethal.
- lynndotpy 7mo ago
  That is different than the proposed test for sanity.
  - nine_k 7mo ago
    Is a proof of lack of insanity a proof of sanity?
    - RugnirViking 7mo ago
      are you aware of the history of mental institutions and insanity charges being used to suppress political dissidents around the world? Most notably in the USSR but the west has also done this sort of thing.
    - lynndotpy 7mo ago
      To start with, "visibly insane" is a ludicrous idea. Further, yes, you can get a license despite being "visibly insane". Some people consider it insane to believe in a deity, to not to, to smoke cigarettes, to have dyed hair, to have an electric car, to have a lime car, to own a Nissan, etc. During my test, the tester said nobody should drive if they hadn't gotten 10 hours of sleep, and I admitted I had only had six or seven. I still got my license. Interpreted generously, maybe some small percentage of "insane people" are visibly so. Even then, looking at someone is not a proof of a lack of sanity. Sanity isn't a thing you can test for, it's definitely not something the government should test for. To make the implied question explicit: How do you envision positively testing for sanity? How would you feel if this test were implemented in 1940, 1900, 1860, 1820, etc? Would your feelings about that differ by the inclination of the politicians in power?