8 ms·

You already carry a cellphone, I presume. Also, I am against most forms of gun control, being otherwise very liberal in my worldview. However, I cannot possib

by herbig 13y ago

You already carry a cellphone, I presume. Also, I am against most forms of gun control, being otherwise very liberal in my worldview. However, I cannot possibly understand why a developer would need to carry a gun at all times. You are inviting trouble with that, and more likely to die to your own gun than you are to protect yourself from some bad guys. If you want to carry a gun with you, I support your right to do so. But it's the objectively wrong play.

CompelTechnic 13y ago
"Objectively wrong play" is a bit too much. Carrying a gun does have benefits, and it does have drawbacks. Lots of room for this to be subjective, and lots of room for someone to subjectively find this to be a good thing to do.
- strlen 13y ago
  Yep, it's a personal decision to make. It would be simple for me to get a non-resident CCW permit in number of shall-issue states I visit, but I've chosen not to. That's, however, my choice based on my own circumstances. I don't think I can "objectively" decide this for others.
wylee 13y ago
A question (maybe a nitpick) about the word "liberal"--wouldn't it be more "liberal" to be against gun control since less control means more liberty?
- hbags 13y ago
  It probably depends on whether you believe guns are more likely to create liberty or destroy it. There are some very reasonable arguments that guns destroy more liberty than they create, and thus it is liberal to be against tools that make violence so easily accessible.
- Crito 13y ago
  Nearly all political terminology is heavily overloaded. The best you can do is take the words as they are used; trying to infer meaning from them etymologically won't work. For example, if we were to take the term "conservative" literally we would expect Republicans to be rabid environmentalists.
- aric 13y ago
  Yes. The more classical term "liberal," unfortunately, has been steadily eroding into a term used by people who espouse much the opposite of any form of liberation or freer society. Both major political wings amount to funnels for increasing government power and reach. Thus, the nation has learned to largely solve its social issues through docile hope (e.g. deferring to the spending decisions of oligarchical interests and trickle-down economics) and through the torture of imprisonment to settle nonviolent disobedience. There are people who think that giving a central group the authority to prohibit an entire general population's ability to use guns is justified. They feel it would personally give themselves an increased sense of liberation. I empathize with the wish to see a more peaceful world (a highly subjective idealism). However, from my vantage, putting faith into a heavily centralized form of constraint is not "liberal" in any way that actually respects that word at a human level.
- rsync 13y ago
  "A question (maybe a nitpick) about the word "liberal"--wouldn't it be more "liberal" to be against gun control since less control means more liberty?" Yes. Conversely, the political party aligned with corporate and business interests (whichever that may be at the time) is NOT the political party that will champion broad access to means of force. Whatever (temporary) accident of history it is that the party of corporate power is also the party of "gun rights" is an anomaly and will self-correct quickly.
Crito 13y ago
> more likely to die to your own gun than you are to protect yourself from some bad guys. You need to be careful when applying statistical trends to specific individuals. For example, if we suppose hypothetically that impoverished people are more likely to commit robberies, it would be inappropriate to tell a particular impoverished person that they are more likely to commit robberies. Who knows, it could be that they are impoverished because they are a monk who has taken a vow of poverty (and therefore has essentials, such as food and housing, provided to them). In this particular case, while it may be true that gun owners are statistically more likely to be killed by their own gun than by a criminal with a gun, it does not follow that this particular gun owner is more likely to be killed by their own gun. It is possible that most gun owners are dangerously unfamiliar with their guns and basic safety procedures while this particular gun owner is not.
- kansface 13y ago
  Why is this the case: "it does not follow that this particular gun owner is more likely"? Doesn't this follow from assignment to the set?
talmand 13y ago
Your claim about more likely to die to your own gun is often a misleading statement. The leading type of death caused by firearms in the US is suicide, by a large factor. The leading method of suicide in the US is by firearms. Therefore, if you remove suicide from those numbers the chances of you dieing by your own gun is reduced significantly. Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves whenever I see a statement like that tossed out without context. Without context, it sounds like you will be killed by your own gun by factors beyond your control, which would be rare indeed. Using it as a way to discourage gun ownership is misleading, unless they have suicidal tendencies. Also, you don't need your cellphone to defend yourself; you can toss it whenever you choose.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  Have you considered that gun ownership may contribute to suicide, by lowering the threshold of planning needed, and thus making it possible for gun owners who wouldn't commit suicide by other means? It's not as simple of a relationship as you make it out to be.
  - Crito 13y ago
    My below argument still applies. If we take a "gun ownership"->"suicide" relationship for granted, we cannot assume that this particular gun owner is at risk for suicide. If there is a trend, then we can talk about the trend and populations. However talking about individuals requires more care.
    - gpcz 13y ago
      I think the argument only applies depending on your definition of "risk for suicide" and whether you believe there are people who never under any circumstances in their lives feel suicidal even for a second before snapping out of it. Killing yourself requires two things: the will to do it and a means. If you have a loaded gun, the means is a constant: at any point in time you have it you could use it to kill yourself. Will, on the other hand, is a function dependent on a bunch of things: bad news, time, emotional state, social interactions, etc. I would define "risk for suicide" in terms of the combination of both will and means. As such, unless the individual's will to commit suicide is absolutely and always zero, adding a reliable means would always increase risk of suicide. I guess it's up for debate whether there's anyone on the planet who has never felt suicidal for even a second in their lives.
strlen 13y ago
> If you want to carry a gun with you, I support your right to do so. But it's the objectively wrong play. Have you lived in SoMa or Oakland?
nazgulnarsil 13y ago
private gun ownership deters an order of magnitude more crime than is committed with guns. This is not hyperbole, it is the DoJ statistics.
lwhalen 13y ago
"Why would a developer need to carry a gun at all times?" As a brief example, take a look at the recent trend of 'protesters' storming the Google Bus, breaking windows, and generally causing a disturbance. What protection would the Googlers have if some of those protesters decided to stop breaking windows and start breaking kneecaps? What if the 'protesters' wanted a little more from the female programmer crowd that day? I realize that San Fran (and most of California) has a fatwa on concealed-weapons and private gun ownership in general, but to not put too fine a point on it: THAT is why. Regardless of your profession, you should have a right to defend yourself against violence. Legal conceal-carry is the best way a 90-lb programmer can defend herself against a 200-lb assailant. Victims should not have to rely on the largesse of their assailants to ensure their personal safety.

by herbig 13y ago

CompelTechnic 13y ago

"Objectively wrong play" is a bit too much. Carrying a gun does have benefits, and it does have drawbacks. Lots of room for this to be subjective, and lots of room for someone to subjectively find this to be a good thing to do.

strlen 13y ago
Yep, it's a personal decision to make. It would be simple for me to get a non-resident CCW permit in number of shall-issue states I visit, but I've chosen not to. That's, however, my choice based on my own circumstances. I don't think I can "objectively" decide this for others.

wylee 13y ago

A question (maybe a nitpick) about the word "liberal"--wouldn't it be more "liberal" to be against gun control since less control means more liberty?

hbags 13y ago
It probably depends on whether you believe guns are more likely to create liberty or destroy it. There are some very reasonable arguments that guns destroy more liberty than they create, and thus it is liberal to be against tools that make violence so easily accessible.
Crito 13y ago
Nearly all political terminology is heavily overloaded. The best you can do is take the words as they are used; trying to infer meaning from them etymologically won't work. For example, if we were to take the term "conservative" literally we would expect Republicans to be rabid environmentalists.
aric 13y ago
Yes. The more classical term "liberal," unfortunately, has been steadily eroding into a term used by people who espouse much the opposite of any form of liberation or freer society. Both major political wings amount to funnels for increasing government power and reach. Thus, the nation has learned to largely solve its social issues through docile hope (e.g. deferring to the spending decisions of oligarchical interests and trickle-down economics) and through the torture of imprisonment to settle nonviolent disobedience. There are people who think that giving a central group the authority to prohibit an entire general population's ability to use guns is justified. They feel it would personally give themselves an increased sense of liberation. I empathize with the wish to see a more peaceful world (a highly subjective idealism). However, from my vantage, putting faith into a heavily centralized form of constraint is not "liberal" in any way that actually respects that word at a human level.
rsync 13y ago
"A question (maybe a nitpick) about the word "liberal"--wouldn't it be more "liberal" to be against gun control since less control means more liberty?" Yes. Conversely, the political party aligned with corporate and business interests (whichever that may be at the time) is NOT the political party that will champion broad access to means of force. Whatever (temporary) accident of history it is that the party of corporate power is also the party of "gun rights" is an anomaly and will self-correct quickly.

Crito 13y ago

> more likely to die to your own gun than you are to protect yourself from some bad guys. You need to be careful when applying statistical trends to specific individuals. For example, if we suppose hypothetically that impoverished people are more likely to commit robberies, it would be inappropriate to tell a particular impoverished person that they are more likely to commit robberies. Who knows, it could be that they are impoverished because they are a monk who has taken a vow of poverty (and therefore has essentials, such as food and housing, provided to them). In this particular case, while it may be true that gun owners are statistically more likely to be killed by their own gun than by a criminal with a gun, it does not follow that this particular gun owner is more likely to be killed by their own gun. It is possible that most gun owners are dangerously unfamiliar with their guns and basic safety procedures while this particular gun owner is not.

kansface 13y ago
Why is this the case: "it does not follow that this particular gun owner is more likely"? Doesn't this follow from assignment to the set?

talmand 13y ago

Your claim about more likely to die to your own gun is often a misleading statement. The leading type of death caused by firearms in the US is suicide, by a large factor. The leading method of suicide in the US is by firearms. Therefore, if you remove suicide from those numbers the chances of you dieing by your own gun is reduced significantly. Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves whenever I see a statement like that tossed out without context. Without context, it sounds like you will be killed by your own gun by factors beyond your control, which would be rare indeed. Using it as a way to discourage gun ownership is misleading, unless they have suicidal tendencies. Also, you don't need your cellphone to defend yourself; you can toss it whenever you choose.

DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
Have you considered that gun ownership may contribute to suicide, by lowering the threshold of planning needed, and thus making it possible for gun owners who wouldn't commit suicide by other means? It's not as simple of a relationship as you make it out to be.
- Crito 13y ago
  My below argument still applies. If we take a "gun ownership"->"suicide" relationship for granted, we cannot assume that this particular gun owner is at risk for suicide. If there is a trend, then we can talk about the trend and populations. However talking about individuals requires more care.
  - gpcz 13y ago
    I think the argument only applies depending on your definition of "risk for suicide" and whether you believe there are people who never under any circumstances in their lives feel suicidal even for a second before snapping out of it. Killing yourself requires two things: the will to do it and a means. If you have a loaded gun, the means is a constant: at any point in time you have it you could use it to kill yourself. Will, on the other hand, is a function dependent on a bunch of things: bad news, time, emotional state, social interactions, etc. I would define "risk for suicide" in terms of the combination of both will and means. As such, unless the individual's will to commit suicide is absolutely and always zero, adding a reliable means would always increase risk of suicide. I guess it's up for debate whether there's anyone on the planet who has never felt suicidal for even a second in their lives.

strlen 13y ago

> If you want to carry a gun with you, I support your right to do so. But it's the objectively wrong play. Have you lived in SoMa or Oakland?

nazgulnarsil 13y ago

private gun ownership deters an order of magnitude more crime than is committed with guns. This is not hyperbole, it is the DoJ statistics.

lwhalen 13y ago

"Why would a developer need to carry a gun at all times?" As a brief example, take a look at the recent trend of 'protesters' storming the Google Bus, breaking windows, and generally causing a disturbance. What protection would the Googlers have if some of those protesters decided to stop breaking windows and start breaking kneecaps? What if the 'protesters' wanted a little more from the female programmer crowd that day? I realize that San Fran (and most of California) has a fatwa on concealed-weapons and private gun ownership in general, but to not put too fine a point on it: THAT is why. Regardless of your profession, you should have a right to defend yourself against violence. Legal conceal-carry is the best way a 90-lb programmer can defend herself against a 200-lb assailant. Victims should not have to rely on the largesse of their assailants to ensure their personal safety.