3 ms·

It's a different situation. American's really like the idea of having the power to protect themselves. That's why when you throw the statistic that you will mos

It's a different situation. American's really like the idea of having the power to protect themselves. That's why when you throw the statistic that you will most likely never need the gun they don't care. This is because despite the odds being so low they are afraid of being that 1 or 2%. However, American's really don't like the idea of an overly powerful government watching over your shoulder. The idea that the government is supposedly using gathering this information and that it doesn't even have a legitimate use case is unappealing to most.

dllthomas 13y ago
I think you interpreted the parent as saying people should be persuaded to support gun control; I think the parent was saying people should be persuaded to oppose gun control. I base this on the "(usually related to smoking, alcohol, and backyard pools)" - the implicit argument being "each of these things kill more people than firearms, why is it the firearms you want to regulate?"
- dustingetz 13y ago
  It's because one has a decision to drink, smoke, or buy a pool. One doesn't get to choose if they will be shot.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    No, I don't think that is the reason. Many parents would rather that their children not visit the home of a friend that had guns in it. Would as many parents be apprehensive about sending their children to a home with a pool? I suspect not. There may be legitimate reasons that they are treated differently in a way that does not immediately make sense when you examine the risks they pose, but I don't think that choice or lack of it is that reason. I think that you are looking for something more subtle.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Agency is scarier than lack of agency.
    - cheald 13y ago
      Speaking as a parent who has left his children to be babysat at houses with both guns and pools, the pools are a far bigger concern. When both are treated as the dangers they can be, neither is a threat. It's much easier to forget about a pool than a gun, though, and a gun is much less likely to be accessible to a child than a pool. Kids who can't swim can fall into a pool and drown before you realize that anything's wrong, and playing around pools is normal kid behavior, while playing with Actual Real Firearms is not. I wouldn't leave my kids at any place that I felt was going to be a tangible danger to them - be that a house with a pool and a back door that doesn't have a child lock or pool gate, or a house of an irresponsible gun owner, or a house with exposed electrical wiring, or anything else that I feel poses a material threat to my child's life.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
niels_olson 13y ago
> Americans really don't like the idea of an overly powerful government watching over your shoulder Most Americans haven't thought about it hard enough to make a meaningful personal decision and have allowed themselves to adopt the first external opinion they were offered, so it's about 50-50 pro-con on the question. What you're doing, is giving yourself permission to not engage other people about the issue. "Oh, I don't need to talk to grandma, I'm sure she's already on my side."

dllthomas 13y ago

I think you interpreted the parent as saying people should be persuaded to support gun control; I think the parent was saying people should be persuaded to oppose gun control. I base this on the "(usually related to smoking, alcohol, and backyard pools)" - the implicit argument being "each of these things kill more people than firearms, why is it the firearms you want to regulate?"

dustingetz 13y ago
It's because one has a decision to drink, smoke, or buy a pool. One doesn't get to choose if they will be shot.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  No, I don't think that is the reason. Many parents would rather that their children not visit the home of a friend that had guns in it. Would as many parents be apprehensive about sending their children to a home with a pool? I suspect not. There may be legitimate reasons that they are treated differently in a way that does not immediately make sense when you examine the risks they pose, but I don't think that choice or lack of it is that reason. I think that you are looking for something more subtle.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Agency is scarier than lack of agency.
  - cheald 13y ago
    Speaking as a parent who has left his children to be babysat at houses with both guns and pools, the pools are a far bigger concern. When both are treated as the dangers they can be, neither is a threat. It's much easier to forget about a pool than a gun, though, and a gun is much less likely to be accessible to a child than a pool. Kids who can't swim can fall into a pool and drown before you realize that anything's wrong, and playing around pools is normal kid behavior, while playing with Actual Real Firearms is not. I wouldn't leave my kids at any place that I felt was going to be a tangible danger to them - be that a house with a pool and a back door that doesn't have a child lock or pool gate, or a house of an irresponsible gun owner, or a house with exposed electrical wiring, or anything else that I feel poses a material threat to my child's life.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

niels_olson 13y ago

> Americans really don't like the idea of an overly powerful government watching over your shoulder Most Americans haven't thought about it hard enough to make a meaningful personal decision and have allowed themselves to adopt the first external opinion they were offered, so it's about 50-50 pro-con on the question. What you're doing, is giving yourself permission to not engage other people about the issue. "Oh, I don't need to talk to grandma, I'm sure she's already on my side."