i live in the american south, where everybody owns guns. i own a gun for hunting. but for self defense, i have pepper spray and bear spray instead of guns because i don't want to kill somebody regardless of their intentions. i'd be curious to see the stats of self-defense/firearms, because it seems like self-defense gun owners are LARPing over imagined intruder situations. they're definitely not about to take up arms against the state, and if they think they would do that, then they're certainly LARPing and live in a fantasy world.
exceptions to this rule, especially in the american south, are civil rights leaders and similar political activists. Martin Luther King preached non-violent protest but owned guns for protecting his home against the very real threat of violent racists. (there's some interesting writing about this if you look it up. google something like "martin luther king guns malcolm x")
the bigger risk is accidentally killing somebody with a gun, like an "intruder" that is actually somebody you know. or a kid accidentally firing the gun and killing themselves or somebody else, or somebody intentionally killing themselves.
edit: added "but" in front of dependent clause "for self defense"
But it sounds like it really varies source to source. The problem is that a lot of the time it is just an estimate. Not all self-defense uses of a gun are reported as often someone doing a criminal action is not going to self-report it. And the person with the gun may not want to report it either for fear of getting in trouble. Additionally it doesn't seem like there is really a national database that can properly catalogue and account for self-defense actions with a gun. So it seems a lot of it is based on estimates from what data they do have.
Either way that low-end estimate still seems to be quite a large number. It does make you think how many violent crimes may have been avoided because of brandishing a firearm in self-defense. It's unfortunate that it is hard to get accurate data on this.
> Either way that low-end estimate still seems to be quite a large number. It does make you think how many violent crimes may have been avoided because of brandishing a firearm in self-defense. It's unfortunate that it is hard to get accurate data on this.
What are the trade offs though?
> 5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense
> Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.
> Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.
CDC says ~ 60,000 to 2.5 million[1] which is a massive range spanning nearly 2 orders of magnitude. It's likely on the higher side because who calls the cops when they had to brandish a firearm to scare someone away... Brandishing is illegal in many states.
"they're definitely not about to take up arms against the state, and if they think they would do that, then they're certainly LARPing and live in a fantasy world."
Didn't the Taliban prove otherwise? That would suggest an armed citizenship can be a counter to tyranny.
Taliban is an interesting case, considering that (1) it's unpopular among many (maybe the majority of) Afghans, (2) it would have been better for almost everybody, even most Taliban recruits, if they fizzled out, and (3) you can trace its birth to foreign powers (US, Pakistan, maybe others) arming and training Afghans to fight their own geopolitical games.
Taken together, my take is that an armed and disenfranchised populace can be exploited by demagogues (and foreign powers) to destabilize the society, eventually overthrowing it, to the detriment of everyone in it.
I think these are two pretty different situations.
If civilian gun owners in the US tried to overthrow the US government, the US military would crush them in a heartbeat. Hell, with the level of militarization of many local police departments in the US, it might not even take the US military.
You can't really compare that to a reluctant, unpopular war fought in someone else's territory. The US was never going to commit the entirety of its military might to defeat the Taliban. And at any rate, it's probably more accurate to say that the Taliban defeated the poorly-trained, poorly-prepared (US's fault) Afghan Army, not the US military. I expect the US could have occupied Afghanistan indefinitely, holding back the Taliban, if we chose to.
Just last year all the living former Secretaries of Defense penned a letter addressed to those serving in the military reminding them of their duty to the Constitution, not to any political figure. That these experts thought it necessary and pertinent to do this extraordinary act suggests that, yes, there's strong likelihood that significant portions of the military would factionalize into separate camps if civil unrest reached a certain pitch.
Taking on the government isn't the reason most people own guns. There are other much more common reasons such as sport, hunting, self defense, etc. That said, if the armories are only stocked for roughly the population of the military, then there's little chance of arming a significant number of civilians that way. Not to mention the logistics would be a nightmare. The real usefulness of civilians owning weapons in that sort of scenario would be self dense, because the social/legal/etc structure would not be there to protect them. These are things we've seen to a limited degree in areas with violent rioting.
> If civilian gun owners in the US tried to overthrow the US government, the US military would crush them in a heartbeat. Hell, with the level of militarization of many local police departments in the US, it might not even take the US military.
The US military you know is not allowed, by law, to fight civilians. Only the national guard can, and that'll be quite hit and miss. The national guard is also under state control. The military would likely disolve and fight for both sides of civil conflict.
> If civilian gun owners in the US tried to overthrow the US government, the US military would crush them in a heartbeat.
This is such a reductionist argument. Many of those civilians used to be those military, and many of those military would no longer be military if this situation arose.
good point, but i'm speaking from a US-centric point of view. and so is this article. so i don't think the your taliban argument is a strong counterpoint to my claim.
The Taliban was fighting against the US though, with all their high-tech drones and such, which are usually cited as the reason that guns are futile against the state.
i don’t know enough about the military strategy that allowed the taliban to seize control, so i can’t argue with you there. but i do want to point out how your argument could be interpreted as advocating for guns so a tyrannical regime like the taliban can take over a government.
My argument is advocating for guns so that a population can determine its own fate, and not be subject to either domestic or foreign top-down control against its own will.
The thing I always find astonishing about the LARPing element of "taking up arms against the state" is how one-sidedly political it is. An authoritarian right-wing state - say, an alternate world where Trump had somehow seized power and suspended democracy - would find large numbers of American gun owners who would be very happy about this and serve as a pro-government paramilitary (coordinating the police/military and doing all the Bad Things that the government doesn't want to be seen doing, like human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing).
It shows an astonishing lack of historical awareness to imagine that gun ownership in private hands will be default mobilized "against tyranny" - like tyranny is always going to be some sort of sneering baddies that the public is 95% against. There are obviously some genuine libertarians among gun owners, but there's also a pretty large contingent of authoritarian right wingers (or people who are libertarian only in respect to their own freedoms).
Exactly. Nothing enables a tyrant like a sympathetic mob that is more heavily armed than those who would fight for freedom. Historically, would-be tyrants tend to make sure their sympathizers are well armed more than to disarm anyone. The idea of someone with MAGA and Punisher stickers on their pickup using their guns to oppose tyranny is laughable. No, they'll be first in line to trade in their fake military insignia for the real version.
It's actually advantageous to have a separate "mob" as well as controlling the military/police; the last thing you want is to formally deputize or enlist them.
This way you can go to international events and join the hand-wringing over lynchings, torture and murder ("we can't control our overenthusiastic supporters and of course mistakes were made on both sides, etc"). You can also preserve your control of rule-followers and humanitarians in the police and military.
As a rule, weapons in private hands seem to be handy for overriding the policies of democratically elected governments while complaining about "tyranny" (c.f. Ammon Bundy).
> lack of historical awareness to imagine that gun ownership in private hands will be default mobilized "against tyranny"
Why is it so hard to believe? You really think the military would drop bombs on cities and destroy infrastructure just to control the populace?
The nature of tyranny is about instilling fear in the populace in order to control them. If you destroy your own cities it defeats the purpose of being in power as a dictator.
The end goal is CONTROL, and you cannot control an armed populace. There aren't enough police and military to take on a city where a good portion of the people are armed. There are millions upon millions of armed civilians, and even the military wouldn't stand a chance. Not to mention that in history, taking guns away is exactly what dictatorships have done.
First, the military would need to have its own fight, which would probably reduce its numbers, and then it's a matter of sheer numbers which is on the civilian side. Again, I'm assuming cities won't get bombed, what's the point of destroying your own country. On the ground, there are potentially many strategies that could defeat the military if there are way more armed civilians.
It's remarkable how little you engaged with what I actually wrote, in your haste to deploy the usual LARPing tropes about freedom fighters and "armed civilians" and such nonsense.
Once again, for the slow kids with reading comprehension problems:
Armed civilians are not a reliable source of resistance against certain types of tyranny - notably right-wing authoritarian tyranny. They are, in fact, more likely to crop up in pro-government paramilitaries who are willing to do the dirty work that a tyranny doesn't want to get around to.
In short, for every gun in the hands of a genuine libertarian, there are 2-3 guns in the hands of hard right authoritarians whose embrace of 'libertarianism' only extends as far as "government letting people exactly like me do whatever they want".
I quoted the part I was responding to. The other part seems not true to me. Trump was extremely overblown by media and many believed it. He stepped down... that's not what dictators do, and it was Trump that as LARPing as a dictator just to get reactions. The evidence is that he was an entertainer and had a TV show. How many dictators in history had TV shows? He played the media, and then everyone went insane. Sure, he's an idiot, but thinking he's a dictator? That is also LARPing.
As far as guns, unlike your suggestion of right-wing authoritarian citizens enforcing government, there are many instances in history like Cuba, where the first thing a dictator does is take away civilian guns.
The point of the 2nd amendment, is for anyone and everyone to own guns. We can see this post and also last year during the riots (BLM, left-wing rallies arming themselves) that everyone goes against gun control once they realize they need to defend themselves.
> LARPing element of "taking up arms against the state" is how one-sidedly political it is
Did you look up any news from Portland lately? Because looks like you didn't, otherwise you'd know about people that has been successfully fighting the police and causing a lot of damage to the state, and the state basically retreating before them with the tail tacked between its legs (the reasons might be complicated but the fact is pretty obvious). And those people don't have much love for Trump, to say the least.
> ...i don't want to kill somebody regardless of their intentions...
This is where each person's specific ethics are really important. I would really hate to ever kill anyone. Full stop. But I would definitely prefer to kill a criminal that was attempting to murder me or someone else.
If you would rather be murdered by a criminal rather than kill them, that is a respectable position to hold. Although I do tend to doubt the conviction of most people who claim this position.
i agree, but i've come to believe that there are other ways to prevent this without a gun. hence my believe in mace as a form of self-defense. i've never been in this situation and hopefully never will be in this situation. so we'll let this hacker news comment act as a historical note for my personal decree.
it's interesting that you criticize owning guns for self-defense, but claim it as a (partial) reason for owning your own guns. perhaps you mean self-defense against wildlife rather than people, since you use pepper/bear spray to avoid chancing murder?
but yes, there's is roughly a 0% chance that using a gun defensively in a hostile situation will result in successful self-defense, where only the perpetrator is incapacitated and not the defender or bystanders, primarily because of a complete lack of (extreme duress) experience and (usually) genuine lethal intent. and the mere act of brandishing a weapon in such circumstances tends to escalate them uncontrollably, and to the defender's disadvantage.
we can discourage gun ownership for self-defense and still support them for their (symbolic) value against governmental tyranny, as well their general usefulness in hunting and rural life. regardless, we should work on reducing gun death and injury: over 100K/yr are injured/killed by guns in the US.
maybe i'm sleep deprived today, but i'm missing where i claimed owning guns for self-defense? i own for hunting, so i can hunt wildlife. not for self-defense, but for food.
> but yes, there's is roughly a 0% chance that using a gun defensively in a hostile situation will result in successful self-defense
I'm pretty anti-gun as they come, but this seems like a pretty absurd assertion. I would certainly expect a non-trivial amount of self-defense situations involving firearms would result in disaster, but I would not expect that to be even close to "nearly all of them".
Excellent. There's no reason defensive gun buyers should be demographically different from the general population. It's understandable that gun sales for hunting or other activities might show differences, but we all have the same personal security needs.
Side note: I'm one of the people here with a large collection of firearms. One thing to realize when you see the statistic that the US has more firearms than people is that only a percentage of them are really combat worthy/capable. Most of my collection, for example, are collectable historic pieces, or dedicated target/sporting firearms. Some of these could feasibly be pressed into service if you had absolutely nothing else, but they would be extremely sub-optimal for the task.
For decades I have lived deep in the heart of some of the densest cities in the country (SF and NYC). These are places with serious and obvious crime problems that I have seen up close and personal, day in and day out. Yet to me, despite these experiences, the entire concept of "personal security needs" involving firearms is absolutely absurd. It sounds like a Monty Python sketch. Silly to the point of absurdity.
But, I don't deny that tens of millions of Americans do genuinely think that owning a firearm is a legitimate security precaution. Even though they mostly live in vastly, vastly safer zip codes.
Using city life as baseline to measure personal safety needs ignores the fact that living in a city safely usually is a matter of luck & avoiding places like the tenderloin in SF, the west & south sides in Chicago, etc. There’s also cops that are minutes away, and worst case violent people typically want your valuables more than your life.
I grew up in Chicago, but I also spent my summers living on my grandparents’ farm in a deep rural area. It’s just a different experience out there when you’re alone in the middle of nowhere surrounded by occasionally hostile wildlife and occasionally some pretty weird people. There’s much less room for avoidance or flight from danger, which makes guns feel useful to carry. I still feel naked hiking unarmed in California.
Causation - no, correlation - very likely. Policies and politicians that cause strict gun laws also cause higher crime, and conversely, politicians, when faced with higher crime, would reflectively reach for the only leverage they have - stricter laws. Which would usually be futile (at least without many other measures, which aren't used that frequently). Thus, in practice, strict gun laws and crime - at least in the US - often go together. There are exceptions of course - very safe places could introduce strict gun laws out of virtue signaling, moral panic or other considerations. But the common case is as per above.
I always enjoy watching Americans accuse other Americans of living in places "with strict gun laws", as if nearly all of the US isn't a moderate drive away from a place with lax gun laws.
It's also fairly absurd to refer to places with few gun laws as "much safer". The only way of making that trick work is to compare big cities in areas with stronger gun control with rural areas and small towns elsewhere. The worst US cities for murder rates show no real pattern of being in anti-gun jurisdictions (or the opposite).
St Louis has the highest homicide rate in the US. You figure Missouri is anti-gun? New Orleans, Kansas City, Memphis and Las Vegas also make the top by murder rates.
I should note, in the interest of fairness, that about half of the top 10 cities in the USA by homicide rate are in states that could be described as "gun control states". Thus "no pattern". Although, I will reiterate the idea that any city in the continental USA is really not that long a drive away from a state with lax gun laws.
Not sure how anyone can respond to your assertion that it's silly and absurd. I'm fine with you feeling that way as long as you don't try to restrict my right to own them.
I guess one thing I can say is that security needs indeed are met by firearms, including yours to the degree that the police or private security protect you. So, it shouldn't be too foreign of a concept to anyone. Some of us choose to extend that protection to our homes and person, and take responsibility over it to varying degrees.
You are not thinking realistically about their security concerns. Being alone in the middle of nowhere late at night in the dark -- that doesn't happen in a condominium in the middle of Manhattan.
> Even though they mostly live in vastly, vastly safer zip codes.
Do they though? Not sure where you got this information from. And are we talking legal gun ownership or guns in general? Because even in the "hood" and the "projects" it's quite common for people to be "strapped". Those guns may often not be legal, but they are also still carrying them for self-defense in most cases. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if these communities had a much higher percentage of weapons. I am sure you'd feel a lot safer walking at night in a low income neighbourhood if you had that kind of protection and I could definitely understand why someone would want to walk around armed.
Not the parent poster, but I would not feel safer in a bad neighborhood armed. If someone is going to draw on me, I doubt I'd have the time to out-draw them. And if they aren't, then I just don't need the gun at all.
Unless you're suggesting that walking around obviously armed acts as a deterrence, but I'm not sure I buy that either. I think it's equally possible that could draw more attention to you.
(I do agree, though, that the parent seems to have some weird ideas as to what is and isn't safe, and what guns may or may not protect someone from.)
Or, the fact that you don't really know a particular gun fits you until you buy it and use it for a decent period of time. I have 6 different semi-automatic pistols because it's hard to find the right fit. Personally, it takes me 1000 rounds or so, plus 8+ hours of draw practice to feel comfortable with a given platform. Finally, selling used guns kinda sucks so I just end up keeping them.
I've never touched a gun, but as far as a know hunting weapons are not optimal for self defense.
When you hunt a deer you try to hit from far away and if you miss, well, you'll find another.
When someone is trying to harm you (even with a knife), you want to shoot multiple times and as fast as possible. If you shoot once and miss, by the time you manually reload, the attacker can get to you. If you do hit, but with a small caliber, that doesn't have stopping power. You might seriously injure the attacker, but he'll also injure/kill you.
Between the two, I might go with the knife in most situations. I can't carry my hunting rifle around with me all day. Mine also has a huge scope on it that makes it useless at the distances you would typically encounter a hostile human attacker. The rifle is also overpowered for the job, and introduces concern for damage to unintended targets.
Have you ever heard the saying "in a knife fight, the difference between the loser and the winner is that the winner gets to go to the hospital"? Doesn't seem like a fun situation to be in. Especially for people who hunt with weaker calibers or lower powered scopes, it seems ideal to stay out of arm's reach from any potential bad guy
But if the choice comes down to a hunting rifle, a knife, and a Glock 19, I'm going to choose the option that will put the threat down quickly and humanely.
Your comment seems to be a bit of a non sequitur. GP said they were not combat-worthy due to being collectibles/antiques, not due to... whatever it is you're talking about.
Among my collection is a 100-year-old 16ga. H&R single-barrel shotgun passed down through four generations. It hasn't been fired in decades, and hasn't seen an armorer in longer than that. Not only is there no semi-auto, there is no magazine at all, and even if you'd be willing to go to war with something that needed to be manually reloaded after every shot, I am not altogether convinced the breach wouldn't explode upon firing.
This is correct. My current collectables (C&R and antique) are all capable of being fired, but I almost never do due to their value and risk of damaging them. Many are over 100 years old and there's a decent enough chance some irreplaceable part will break during use. I can also easily reduce their value by 1000s of dollars by doing something like this. I keep them because I enjoy their historical significance and the interesting mechanical solutions they embody, not for their ability to launch projectiles. When I'm ready to go to the nursing home, I'll sell them and get my money back or more.
A good percentage of the firearms out there are like this, which was my point for those not aware. Another good percentage are specialized for sporting use. Some are so inappropriate for combat that you'd be better off with a spear (e.g., if given the choice between a 50lb benchrest rifle and a spear, I'll take the spear).
Some old collectables are not safely operable against any target. Some simply aren't operable. Even if they're not worn out from use or disrepair, the chemistry of ammunition has changed over the years and it may not be safe to use with modern ammunition. For others, commercially made ammunition might not be available at all.
Yes, people have been killed by old antique guns. But most of them in this category them are rotting away in attics or forgotten in safes. They're certainly not what is predominantly being used in street crime.
I suspect that those women are realizing they can't reasonably rely on men for any kind of protection, as any kind of physical protection is basically illegal, taboo, and effectively bred out of the middle class now anyway, so it makes sense more women would take responsibility themselves.
Gun purchases also correlate to perceptions of changes in social order as well, where there's a "get 'em before they're gone!" cycle in the political climate. This change in numbers is probably not significant compared to other gun purchase bumps in front of political threats for additional restrictions.
We live in a culture of glorified violence seen widely in film, print, pop culture. We've got an enormous catalog of shooter videogames going back decades that our youngster clamor to purchase and play.
We've got a set of laws that allow you to take steps to defend yourself in your own home, with varying degrees of strictness and leniency.
Anecdotally, I know many people in the middle class who, while abhorring violence, would defend themselves and their families.
A gentleman's cane used to be a bludgeon in addition to being a fashion accessory.
Video games are the furthest thing from physical defense. They're amusement. Do you really think that playing video games leads to increased skill and confidence when engaging in a fistfight in the street?
In schools in the US, children are punished for defending themselves in a fight. There is a vanishingly small percentage of people who have the practical experience to be comfortable physically battering a stranger on the street corner to a reasonable degree.
I imagine that description will evoke the thought in your head that there is no reasonable degree, that physical violence isn't the answer, and that the right thing to do in a situation where you're physically accosted is to leave the area or call for security. Yep. That's what we're talking about. There's an amount of security provided by a man who's comfortable slapping another man in the head because the other man is being aggressive, if only because that comfort is communicated in non-verbal ways which subsequently make it unnecessary.
I dunno, I definitely feel like it's been drilled into me that in any kind of physical altercation, my duty is to escape and retreat, and that if I hurt my attacker in any way, that might be used against me in court. And even if I successfully press charges against my attacker, and they go to jail, if I hurt them in the course of their attack on me, I can probably expect to get sued.
I agree that many of the lawsuits are absurd. I also don't like the "duty" wording. Sure, you want to avoid, deescalate, flee, then fight. But codifying it as a duty seems to ignore just how messy and instantaneous those situations can be.
Maybe the comment refers to the changes in gender roles over the past decades. Our society no longer widely accepts the idea that women are fragile and men have the responsibility to protect them.
A bit of both. First, men aren't responsible for women, but also, the legal consequences for violence are aimed at punishing it for its own sake instead of recognizing that it is a necessary social deterrant, and removing it rewards certain kinds of predators.
The bred-out part is that administrative institutional jobs that make up the middle class select for traits that disadvantage the skills and traits of traditionally masculine roles like soldiers, builders etc, and so the odds of your partner in a middle class job relationship having the physical presence to fend off a safety threat are less than they once may have been. The best these guys can do is threaten to sue. Hence, this story about women taking on responsibility for their own protection themselves.
the legal consequences for violence are aimed at punishing it for its own sake instead of recognizing that it is a necessary social deterrant
Depends on where you live in the US; I don't think this is true for most of the country, but that's not clear to most people because the MSM is very anti-gun and very rarely reports on self-defense cases unless they're twisted into claimed crimes. Since there are millions of these every year, that statistic first gleaned from data collected by an anti-gun group....
One thing that comes to mind are the zero tolerance policies at schools. It's to the point where you aren't allowed to fight back in self defense. You just have to take the beating.
I agree on the illegality and taboo nature, but I strongly disagree with the breeding out. Stats show that Western societies are getting taller and heavier with time. All these giants walking around us could easily conjure up knockout power if they get enough adrenaline coarsing through their veins.
I think they meant it in the literary sense that people are being raised that way, not that the genetics are trending that way. Although, testoterone levels have been dropping over the past 50 years in the US, so there could be some physiological influence.
The personal safety issue is being covered a lot here, but I think some people are missing something else; guns are a lot of fun. In an era where bars and movie theaters were closed due to pandemic, you could safety go to an outside range and ring steel instead. This is particularly relevant if you consider the ongoing shortage in 22lr, a cartridge which is woefully underpowered for self defense, but ideal for killing soda cans and learning the basics of marksmanship.
A firearm used for self defense needs to provide a balance of bullet energy transfer (correlated with threat cessation effectiveness), ease of use, ability to make attempts to fire on target successfully given extreme stress, little or no notice to prepare, and operating while thoroughly disoriented due to surprise.
Bullets which do not halt upon impact with the body but go through it with minimal damage do not stop the threat. The chances of this occurring decrease with caliber size increases and benefit from hollow point ammunition. Larger ammunition cartridges are heavy and bulky and you can't fit many bullets (=attempts) in a convenient cartridge.
The decision to use a firearm is never taken lightly by a normal person, and normal people can not fire on target under stress. It's a balance between bullet energy transfer which is correlated with threat cessation and ergonomics.
It's important to remember that a single shot will not stop most assailants. It's normal to have to fire 3-6 times with normal 9mm ammunition to stop someone intent on killing on you. Sometimes you get lucky with one, but it's not true most of the time. Many times gunshots are enough to subdue the threat without killing them.
I guess my dreamed up scenarios were more vague "shooter/assailant in the area" whereby I figured I'd want to "make myself less desirable to bother with while I exit the area". Hence small caliber, lots of noise/attempts and if - god forbid - anything connected it would still hurt/slow them.
I never really contemplated a "someone intent on killing you" scenario. It isn't something I think of much and I appreciate that clearly people have.
In general most people simply won't ever encounter that scenario. There are parts of the US where the people who commit crimes against you won't think twice about "eliminating eyewitnesses," especially if they are a protected class with favorable treatment by the judiciary in their particular jurisdiction. Court systems vary immensely around the US in prosecutory discretion and rulings. For this reason it is more acceptable to defend yourself with firearms when in Texas than in the Northeast.
Additionally, 9-1-1 simply does not work in many parts of the country. In rural areas, response times are on the order of half an hour or longer. In cities like Washington D.C., 9-1-1 can take FIVE MINUTES to pick up the phone. I could not believe it until I needed to use it. I was put on hold by 9-1-1, LOL. I was able to run away from the threat and hide in that case. I was attacked unprovoked near a dark wooded area while walking down the street. I got lucky then. The stories about Rock Creek Park disappearances are true.
The standard of a defensive caliber is that it needs to be capable of immediately halting an attacker with the kinds of shots a scared defendant can pull off[0]. Not killing them immediately or eventually, but halting the attack. Plenty of gun shot wounds are capable of killing eventually even if they’re not immediately disabling, and it does you no good if your assailant eventually bleeds to death after they’ve finished stabbing you.
The issue is that halting an attack occurs because of hydrostatic shock, which is a product of a bullets velocity and expansion. 22lr is capable of causing blood loss, which can eventually lead to death, but it does not deliver enough energy to reliable render an attacker incapable of continuing the fight if they’re sufficiently motivated. Assuming that the assailant isn’t immediately scared off by the brandishing or noise of a firearm, which is often the case, 22lr requires extremely good shot placement and volume to reliably end a fight, which makes it a poor choice all around.
Generally for modern firearms the minimum is either 380acp or 9mm, depending on who you ask. The only advantage that 380 has is that some 380 guns are easier to manipulate for those with weak or small hands, otherwise 9mm is generally the winner here in terms of firearm choices, ammunition availability, and terminal ballistics.
For comparison, here are the levels of energy for 3 cartridges. Energy isn’t the be all end all of terminal ballistics, bullet construction[1] and expansion matters, but it’s illustrative. The ranges quoted are necessary due to different bullet weights and pressure loading.
22lr: 130-200fpe
380ACP: 210-330fpe
9mm: 355-500fpe
0 - Any caliber is capable of killing and/or disabling with luck or extremely good shot placement, this is why even 22lr cannot be treated as a toy. But people shooting defensively do not make record shots generally, and you have to accommodate for the fear and adrenaline of a defensive encounter.
1 - The availability of quality defensive ammunition is another big factor. Defensive ammunition has gotten really good over the past half century, and most of these improvements have completely bypassed 22lr.
Thank you for the detailed response.
I guess my dreamed up scenarios were more vague "shooter/assailant in the area" whereby I figured I'd want to "make myself less desirable to bother with". Hence small caliber, lots of noise/attempts and if - god forbid - anything connected it would still hurt/slow them.
I never really contemplated a "someone intent on killing you" scenario. It isn't something I think of much and I appreciate that clearly people have.
From your comments it seems clear that "stopping power" holds more of a place in conversations.
It is interesting that 22lr hasn't really been technologically updated. But I guess there would be interoperability issues and a "chicken(gun) and the egg(ammo)" scenario to overcome from a commercial point of view.
> I guess my dreamed up scenarios were more vague "shooter/assailant in the area" whereby I figured I'd want to "make myself less desirable to bother with".
Generally the rule on such matters is that there is no such thing as a warning shot, both ethically and legally. For the same reason that shooting for the legs is a bad idea, bringing a lower caliber firearm to warn someone off is kind of a no-no. You should either be shooting to end the engagement, or not shooting at all.
Obviously retreating from an encounter is always the best course of action (and a legal obligation in some states) if possible.
> It is interesting that 22lr hasn't really been technologically updated.
22lr has seen tons of advancement, just not as much in the realm of terminal ballistics. There is incredibly intense competition for more accurate and consistent 22lr ammo, as this is the caliber used for a lot of olympic shooting and some increasingly popular non-olympic competitions.
Fundamentally, it's really not possible to squeeze much more energy out of 22lr. Every production cartridge has a set maximum pressure and firearms are certified for this pressure by nation specific proof houses. For 22lr the max pressure is about 72% the pressure of a 9mm[0]. Squeezing more terminal power out of this cartridge would risk catastrophic firearm damage and probably company liability.
Making matters worse is the fact that semi-automatic (e.g. handgun) firearm design changes pretty radically around or above 380ACP pressures. Above that firearms must have some sort of mechanism to delay opening until chamber pressures fall to a safe level, otherwise cartridges will potentially rupture during extraction and hurt the shooter. All 22lr pistols are of a much simpler design that improves accuracy and lowers price, but makes getting 9mm pressures into an existing 22lr handgun an impossible task. Much easier still to just start with a 9mm, since those work and are well understood.
Also, it's a rimfire cartridge, and that's undesirable for a variety of reasons I'm too tired to explain right now.
It has been technologically updated -- they do improve the tolerances and consistency, introduce wear reducing coatings, and stuff like that -- but it is fundamentally a small, light bullet in a tiny case. That's what defines it, so there's just not much more power you can get out of it.
> I guess my dreamed up scenarios were more vague "shooter/assailant in the area" whereby I figured I'd want to "make myself less desirable to bother with". Hence small caliber, lots of noise/attempts and if - god forbid - anything connected it would still hurt/slow them.
This constitutes the crime of brandishing. You should not own any weapons if you can't keep from fantasizing committing crimes with them.
A friend of our family recently bought a gun and that made me ask them why. Their response was of course personal safety at which point I asked them some more questions and turns out they keep the gun in a gun safe and bullets in another location so as to not cause any accidents as they have kids. But this practice seemed utterly useless if their home was being actively being robbed/attacked since they wont have the time to go fetch bullets/gun and most likely they ll end getting their weapon robbed as well.
They also don't carry it everywhere they go so its mostly a trophy in a safe.
I imagine the friend may believe that being confident in one's ability to use guns safely and effectively is also a hedge against danger, independent of the utility of that specific gun. That specific gun may make training and becoming confident with guns possible. Playing it conservatively with storage and handling as a someone new to firearms seems like the reasonable path.
They also have kids so it sounds like that plays into why they would be extra cautious. Maybe they are willing to risk that extra time needed to have the gun out for protection if it means they don't have to worry about their kids getting ahold of their gun.
> Playing it conservatively with storage and handling as a someone new to firearms seems like the reasonable path.
More than reasonable. Highly recommended. Just like driving a car, it takes some practice to routinely handle guns in a safe way. Even if you eventually become an expert who is comfortable with having a loaded gun available at all times, it’s a great idea to respect your own level of knowledge, and to take time to develop practices that make sure nobody else can gain access to your gun.
I do the same thing, although ammunition only moved to a separate safe when we had kids.
For one thing, burglars are typically not going to hit your house like a Navy SEAL team--they are slow, and there is plenty of time to respond.
Second, the ~90 seconds it takes me to get into both safes and load the firearm is enough time to take a few deep breaths and understand what's happening before drawing a weapon.
Third, it's there in the event of natural disasters, etc where police may not be able to respond. Same reason I keep emergency water and food. I've lived through enough hurricanes to know things can escalate quickly, especially when you're running a loud generator.
You're probably overestimating how fast a home invasion can proceed. Unless the intruders are completely silent and/or have perfect information about the home layout and people's locations in it, it will take them quite a few minutes to round up everyone.
Yup, and common advice by well known firearms experts is not to confront intruders, but to retreat to a known location, ideally upstairs and call the police.
Only if the intruders seem like they are going to come up the stairs do you announce that you have a gun and that the police are on their way.
The purpose of the gun is not to kill the intruders. It is to deter them from approaching you and your family, and make it preferable for them to leave.
This advice is from lawyers who are looking to make your actions as legally defensible as possible. That isn't the same thing as maximizing your odds of surviving the crime.
There's a reason every professional military trains soldiers to that their knee jerk reaction to a threat should be to attack it as violently as possible (with some nuances). Taking back initiative counts for a ton in an ambush situation.
This is correct and any good conceal-carry instructor will make this clear. If your home state does not recognize some form of the "castle doctrine", you can only use deadly force if you believe you're in actual danger. If someone breaks in and you gun them down without being presented with a threat, you're most likely going to jail. Even if you live in one of these states, you'd better hope you get a sympathetic jury and rightfully so.
This is correct, guns are a last resort. They come out when your life is directly in danger, and you shoot to kill, not wound. Most scenarios, like the one I was in, are resolved without a shot being fired.
Edit: I don't believe this warrants downvoting. I'm sharing useful information that would be covered in any Concealed Carry class.
My understanding is that the best firearm for home defense is a shotgun because it has high stopping power, doesn’t require as much accuracy, and is less likely to penetrate walls.
Therefore I don’t particularly take people seriously if their home defense choice is a handgun
shotguns do have more stopping power than your average handgun, but your other points are not really true. even with no choke, the spread from a shotgun at home defense ranges is negligible. you still have to point it directly at the target, though this is a bit easier with a longer firearm. ammo you would choose for defense against humans (ie, buckshot) will easily penetrate one or more walls in a typical dwelling.
the short barrel and relatively low power of a handgun does make it an inherently compromised platform. but the short barrel does have one big advantage: it is much harder for an adversary to take control of the weapon at close range. soldiers sometimes transition to their pistol when clearing structures for this reason, although this is less common now with short-barreled rifles.
but at the end of the day, the "best firearm for home defense" is the one you know how to operate and feel most comfortable using. if they train frequently, you should absolutely take them seriously.
It depends - there are gun safes that open instantly by scanning your finger prints. I think I read somewhere that ideally, in the case of a robbery, you should be able to reach a loaded gun in 30seconds. That seems a tad excessive to me, but overall I agree. It is hard to balance safety and practicality.
I leave my guns around the house when I'm home, but I don't have kids. When I do, the guns will be locked away safely, either inside my waistband or in a safe, and the dog will be the first line of defense until the safe is opened.
This is standard practice until kids are old enough to learn gun safety and be trusted around guns, so 6-10 years old, depending on the kid.
Please note that I'm predicating this on the kids receiving actual training, not saying "don't touch". Children should be able to fully field-strip every gun in the house as soon as they can handle it, and the 4 rules are paramount.
Another possibility is that they just keep them that way now but want to have the guns, ammunition, and training ready if the situation in the country should take a sudden downturn. I know a few very liberal people who have bought guns recently primarily because they don't want the crazies to be the only ones who are armed. They would undoubtedly change their storage methods e.g. if Trumpists decide to violently contest or reject the results of an election.
ETA: How are guns not a sort of trophy for the majority of gun (especially handgun) owners? That's certainly how my gun-afficionado friends on FB seem to treat the ones they post about. Almost certainly never fired at all, let alone in anger.
Afghanistan showed that a people with the will and some handguns and rifles can face the greatest superpower the world has ever known, and win.
The argument of private ownership of guns as protection from the government is a perfectly valid one.
I think the bigger issue with that argument is that there isn't any one moment where your rights are stripped away and the people rebel. It's a gradual process that most will not notice before it's too late. At least that's how I see it.
I'm very optimistic about the future, and even then, seeing the division in the US and how both sides give zero fucks about the rights of the other shows to me how it can happen even here.
I believe also the police have no duty to respond based on a court ruling. Basically the entity we are supposed to rely on in the worst situations has no SLA and we have no recourse if they don't come and help.
I live in the PNW, I've been to the area. If spray paint on a police building is lawless anarchy, alright, I guess, but my best friends girlfriend works literally across the street from the police station depicted, and you know what? It's fine. These stories are bullshit meant to rile you up because fear gets clicks.
Some folks have a different opinion, but these folks seem to be afraid anytime they see a houseless person, or a needle in an alley way, and neither of those problems have been solved with the ever increasing police budgets, just pushed it to a slightly different area, where the outrage starts all over again. There's a problem, sure, but the police ain't the tool to solve them, no matter how much we would like for complex problems to be solved with simple solutions.
CHOP was fine. Walked through there multiple times when it was happening because I was curious, it really does appear to me like media blowing things out of proportion for clicks/views.
What's the excuse for the shootings that happened in other areas that the police didn't abandon? Perhaps it's because shootings happen regardless?
But you know, you're right, I'll take the news medias version of events, my eyes were lying to me, since what I witnessed doesn't jive with sensationalist news coverage.
I was, a man drove his car in to the crowd, when people tried to stop him he fired once out of his car. He ran past me on the way to the police line (the police hadn't abandoned the precinct yet).
So, ironically enough, I was there for a shooting that happened while the police were still holding the area.
Department policies have caused a surge in resignations and early retirements, with no supply of new recruits eager to step up.
In sense, the movement was successful because it reduced the number of police on the street. OTOH, those places are having to increase their police budgets and raise salaries to replace officers who have left.
I live in Seattle, and I can assure you that the SPD is basically useless now. Whether or not it was "defunded", there were budget cuts and enough restrictions added that the PD essentially doesn't respond to calls unless someone is being actively and indisputably murdered.
Have you ever tried to call the police for an emergency? In my experience they've never been very responsive, no reductions needed.
A friend of mine had literally held someone down who assaulted a woman on a train and the police took 20 minutes to arrive.
I was in a hit and run that rendered my car unusable and the police told me to walk to the station and file a report.
I've got a lifetime of stories like this. I don't even bother calling anymore. This is a major city with a police force that has enough funding to have multiple helicopters.
Eight years ago I was mugged on the street, phone and laptop stolen after getting slammed into a concrete wall for not forking my stuff over as quickly as they would have liked. I walked a few blocks to the closest police station, and the cop at the desk exuded a complete lack of interest. I asked if I could have help getting home, and he said "we don't do that". I ended up walking six blocks to a bus stop (right back through where I was mugged) and took the bus home.
Actually, my memory is fuzzy, but I think I didn't walk initially; a friendly bystander drove me to the police station. Surprise, random stranger took better care of me than the police.
throwaway for the obvious reasons... take this as you wish.
I am a person who has drawn their licensed handgun in self-defense, twice, separated by ~25 years and hundreds of miles. One an attempted robbery or interrupted break-in in a rear parking lot by two men who probably thought I had access to the building, the second by a group of three that split and approached quickly from two sides on a city street. In neither case did I need to fire. I had situational awareness that these people were coming toward me to do some kind of harm and the fact that I was absolutely prepared to kill in my own self-defense caused these would be criminals to stop and run away.
From what you are saying, it looks like you also practice drills, at least semi-regularly. I think that is key, no matter the caliber. Hell, even using pepper spray should be exercised once or twice a year.
I didn't fire the one time I had to draw in self defense, and neither did my father the one time he needed it, and neither did my mother the one time she needed it.
Anecdotal as well, but I stopped an attempted home invasion with a 1911. I walked out with it in my hand, pointed at the ground, and they left. Fast. That was it.
A wonderful book that covers the history of the 2nd amendment along with its modern interpretations is The Second Amendment Primer: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Primer-Authorities-C.... It has useful and interesting information regardless of where you stand.
Hypothesis (which I have given about 30 seconds' thought): buying a gun was formerly a way to feel masculine, or to feel potent, or for use in a sport such as hunting or target shooting. In these situations, women found them to have little appeal.
Recently, buying a gun is more often because of an actual concern for safety. Women are about as likely as men to feel concern about that. Hence, the numbers are now more equal.
If this is the actual underlying reason, then these new gun buyers will be less likely to buy a second, third, fourth, etc. gun. Like someone who just buys a car to get around, and thus is less likely to have an urge to get a new one every year, the new gun buyers of 2019-2021 will be more likely to only buy another gun if there is something wrong with the old one.
Again, I gave it about 30 seconds' thought, but that's my guess.
This smacks of the modern left's derision for self defense tools. It's a nicer way of saying someone has a gun to compensate for their genital insecurities. Guns are largely a tool to the people purchasing them. They are also mechanical objects which give pleasure to people who appreciate craftsmanship.
I generally agree with your post, but I think it would be better without that biased(intentional or not) take.
For what it's worth, marginalized groups have often armed themselves when they feel the state is unwilling or unable to protect them.
> This smacks of the modern left's derision for self defense tools. It's a nicer way of saying someone has a gun to compensate for their genital insecurities.
One of the biggest issues I have with the modern left is their tendency to let their prejudices dictate their perceptions like that. It's annoying and repulsive, and it should be embarrassing for people who say stuff like they "believe in science."
As a member of the "modern left", I, too, found the OP's characterization to be cringe-worthy.
While I do know a few people who fit that description ("guns make me feel manly"), they're in the minority. I don't have many friends who own guns, but those who do mostly derive their enjoyment from them by going to the range for target practice (I've tried it and found it fun, too). One acquaintance owns some fairly old weapons and appreciates their construction & design as well as their possible future resale value.
I'm fairly anti-gun, and don't own any myself, but I'm just as tired of the "compensating for something" trope as I'm sure y'all are. It's tired and juvenile, and I assume the only reason it's pulled out is to make the name-caller feel better about themselves.
> Luckily the modern left is the only group of people who let their prejudices dictate their perceptions.
I never said they had a monopoly, but I'm not going let them off the hook just because they've got competition. Their displays of that repulsive tendency also clash more harshly with their rhetoric.
Well enjoy your endless conflict, because what you describe as your biggest issues with the modern left is simply a trait (some would call a flaw) that affects all people. I would work on something more concrete when it comes to your issues with a political leaning if I were you.
The difference being the modern right wears their prejudices on their sleeve, whereas the modern left hypocritically denounces prejudice, and then deploys prejudice at the drop of a hat when it supports their cause. See: discussions about whiteness, about men, about hetereosexuals, about Christians, about "Karens", Trump's weight, etc.
"[M]arginalized groups have often armed themselves when they feel the state is unwilling or unable to protect them."
An example of this is calling to reduce policing, which probably would have the biggest (and very negative) impact in high crime areas. I believe gun sales increased rapidly starting last summer.
I have watched a lot of videos from Peter Santenello [1] on YouTube. He takes a somewhat deep dive into a lot of communities that the traditional media typically fails to highlight or fails to do it properly. He has quite a few videos where he speaks with people in the "hood" or the "projects" in various places across America.
In many of these videos he asks some of the people in these communities what they think about police. The response is often something along the lines of there being a "F the police" mentality, but at the same time they respect the good ones and still need their presence. So even the people living in the communities that are apparently most impacted by the police still are able to say positive things about them. Especially when they talk to any of the "elders" of these communities, they always preach the importance of the police in keeping their communities safe.
So it begs the question, why do so many white people on the left constantly speak for these black communities? These communities never seem to actually say they want less policing in them. Yet it's something you hear all the time from the traditional media and from activist groups.
Personally I am getting pretty sick of the white saviour complexes it seems like a lot of activist people have. They don't live in these communities and maybe have talked to a couple people, but that is enough for them to speak on behalf of a whole community. It's enough for them to go out in protest and riots on their "behalf". And the sad thing is that when black people in these communities speak out about this, they are usually attacked by the activist's and berated. I've seen seem people yelling racist slurs at black people at protests who oppose what is being protested. It's insane.
The virtue signalling is insanely present these days and is super unproductive and harmful.
> These communities never seem to actually say they want less policing in them.
They do! They've been saying it a long time, but no one paid them any attention until George Floyd's life was slowly and casually extinguished by a police officer on camera. Go ask any black male from New York in their 20s or 30s what they think about "Stop and frisk" and the sense of being violated by over policing.
Before you accuse me of having a "white saviour" complex, I'm black. Speaking of "saviour", I'm curious to know if you have experienced american policing, outside of youtube? No snark at all, this is a legitimate question.
I'm not sure 'stop and frisk' == 'policing in general'.
Sure, the actual situation matters. People will probably choose no cops over racist cops. I am not cynical enough yet to think that is the only choice available though.
OP is talking about policing in general, and I've seen other news reports(not youtube, but that doesn't make it gospel) that align with what he's saying. I'm not trying to say your opinion or experiences are wrong, but I think there is more nuance to this discussion and absolutist positions aren't very useful or accurate.
> Go ask any black male from New York in their 20s or 30s what they think about "Stop and frisk" and the sense of being violated by over policing.
I mean I just linked to a YouTube channel specifically interviewing and talking to different people from these areas you mentioned and as I already stated this is not how they feel.
It's a little weird to tell someone to ignore their lived experience and instead watch a YouTube video to learn about their own life.
I don't know Santanello, his videos, or his positions, but I don't think he'd be able to get a full picture no matter how he tried. Yes, I am sure there are black people in rough neighborhoods who do appreciate some of what the police does. But I am sure there are also many who don't. And if you ask those same folks in Santanello's videos if they're ok with stop-and-frisk, I would not expect to hear "yes".
Can you please stop replying for the parent commenters on all my comments? I'm more interested in what they have to say here rather than someone clearly biased coming in to share their opinion against me everywhere.
I mean you responded to my comment that specifically focused on the contents of a YouTube channel. It's not too surprising that I am suggesting you go watch the content my post was speaking about.
You are disagreeing with my post without even having reviewed the content my post was citing and speaking about.
The anecdotal content you cited is irrelevant because your falsifiable statement (that I quoted) is false - unless you feel like only the black people interviewed on that channel matter.
Additional facts, independent to the alleged opinions of the interviewees: NYPD's Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional[1] as it violated the 4th amendment.In 1999 9 out of 10 people who were stopped were completely innocent. 84% of those stopped were black or latino[1] (yet they were only 50% of the population on New York then). Both percentages slid down a little over the years, but in each subsequent year, the majority of stopped people were innocent, and black & latinos were consistently over-represented (against relative populations size).
I really have never said I agree with something like stop and frisk so I am a bit unclear where you are going with this? I have been talking about perceptions of police in these communities not their opinions on one old police program that no longer exists.
I see your point, but I don't know another way to put it. It's like "why do men have swords on their wall more often than women"? Neither men nor women use swords in self-defense much anymore (at least not in the First World). But I would venture to say that there is at least a 10x factor of men vs. women having swords on their walls.
By the way, I'm not politically left-wing, and I do have a few swords on my wall (although no firearms).
I could see why you thought it was being said in this way, though. No offense intended; obviously there are many different reasons why a person might own a firearm.
There’s a difference between “appeals to their masculine tendencies”, which suggests they’re baseline masculine and owning a gun matches it; versus “makes them feel masculine”, which suggests they are baseline not masculine and are buying it to compensate.
I find it ironic that so many on the right like to criticize the left for being "oversensitive snowflakes", and yet here we have you, presumably right-leaning (apologies if I've mischaracterized you), being upset about the difference between "appealing to masculinity" and "compensating for a lack of masculinity". I feel like if the tables were turned, someone on the right would accuse someone on the left of being oversensitive.
I say this not to insult or demean, but in a way that actually makes me happy, because it's another point in support of people on the left and right not being from different planets. Because I totally agree with the point you are making here. There is a difference between saying someone does something because it appeals to their masculinity, vs. saying someone does it because they feel unmasculine and need a boost. And I think you're right to be sensitive about it, and the parent should have worded it differently (or thought about it differently).
The left (both modern and not) is much less self-defense averse than you think. There's plenty of leftist gun clubs; the Socialist Rifle Association and Redneck Revolt, formerly John Brown Gun Club, come to mind immediately.
There's also the long history of unions literally going to war against capitalists, like in the Battle of Matewan.
Also worth remembering that leftist groups like the BPP encouraging its members to legally own firearms led to significant gun control expansion in California.
Depends on your definitions, right? What you describe sounds an awful lot like the Democratic party, but they're liberals, not leftists. I'd argue they're center-right.
From what I've seen at least, when more leftist parties like Green, DSA, the various communist parties, etc, talk about reducing gun violence it's in the context of eliminating poverty and other environmental contributors to the problem.
This mirrors what I've seen personally. I shoot quite a bit, and had a lot of friends reach out about advice on buying a first gun.
Fears were largely around the general civil unrest and BLM rioting last summer. I've heard several women say they don't feel safe being out alone anymore, and felt the need to protect themselves. I've heard a few mothers voice concerns about protecting children as well.
I always coach people to take a gun safety course before bringing a firearm into their home. It worried me seeing so much buying based on fear. I think an armed person is better off, but having a firearm you don't understand, and bought on a knee jerk fear reaction, can be dangerous. I think the best thing I, and other gun enthusiasts, can do is get out there and educate all these new owners so that they're comfortable and safer.
I'm not quite following, but are you saying that women are afraid for their children because of Black Lives Matter?
Have there been any documented cases of BLM indiscriminately attacking women or children? This seems weird to me.
I've taken gun safety courses run by local police, and every time they told us that it's ideal to not have a gun in your house at all because they see more accidental shootings than thwarted break-ins. This is of course, anecdotal, and I'm sure they prefer fewer citizens to have guns... so it might be BS.
> Have there been any documented cases of BLM indiscriminately attacking women or children? This seems weird to me.
Well, there was widespread rioting across more or less the entire nation. Also, while not direct violence by BLM agents, many metropolitan police forces have either introduced "reform" in direct support of BLM policy or have otherwise changed tactics to avoid getting bad press and riots in their own town. There is also the issue of officers getting fed up with these changes and leaving for more supportive locales.
In my city, I've had two different hood-rat road rage incidents this year, having only had one other incident 10+ years ago. In both cases drivers made high-speed dangerous maneuvers and then attempted to run me off the road and stick their firearms out the window. One yesterday morning, the other in February. In the former case, I provided a full description of the driver, vehicle, and plate number to 911 and they never even touched the case. I'm still waiting to hear back some 6 months later. I never bothered calling in the second incident.
Actions have consequences, and a less safe city is a result. Criminals, particularly Black criminals, are emboldened by these changes and the zeitgeist that will back them up no matter how much wrongdoing occurs. It's only natural for folks to look after themselves in the face of a faltering police force.
Not OP, but he may be right. And not because it's true, but because people are irrational. The same people buying guns because they are afraid of BLM/Antifa are also avoiding vaccines while hoarding ivermectin. Irrational.
On the topic of gun ownership by people some would not expect to be into guns, this New York Times article is quite interesting:
The Black Gun Owner Next Door, by Tiya Miles
I’m an African-American historian and, on most issues, decidedly liberal. Could I rethink my anti-gun stance?
Tiya Miles is a professor of history at Harvard and the author of “The Dawn of Detroit: A Chronicle of Slavery and Freedom in the City of the Straits.”
It's amusing to see how various gaps are shrinking between two genders. Although still a long way to go, pay gaps are starting to shrink, at least at big corps. On the other end, for things like marital affair rates, both genders are now pretty close. Right now there is still huge gap in violent crimes between two genders but I wonder if this will shrink as well with new stats like in this article. A lot of our pre-assumptions about genders were either plain wrong or evolution is working its way towards equality as there is no longer need for hunter-gatherer social roles.
There's something admirable about the idea that a government would not take away all the guns. The idea that people should not have to give up all of their ability to fight. The idea that people should not be entirely dependent on police for their defense. And the idea that physically weaker people (often women) can defend themselves against the strong.
Does this idea work? Surprisingly well. If you had to guess the effect of supplying a country with more guns than people -- some 300+ million -- you might guess that people would be dropping like flies. But the U.S. murder rate is not all that remarkable, really. Murder is not a major concern outside of a handful of dangerous areas.
And that's it, really. Guns are a problem in these few areas. But people everywhere else don't want to give up their guns because of a few areas where they are a problem. And they have a point: often in those dangerous places, existing laws against illegal gun sales or felon-in-possesseion aren't enforced very well.
One thing is for sure: picking around the edges by outlawing certain kinds of rifles or making all kinds of other weird laws won't do anything. Rifles are used in something like 2% of murders. Either you outlaw and collect all handguns (including revolvers), or don't bother.
> But the U.S. murder rate is not all that remarkable, really
The US is at 4.96/100,000 for 2012. For reference, Angola is better at 4.85. Bulgaria and Romania, the poorest countries in the EU, are at 1.3. France is at 1.2.
If by not remarkable you mean 3 as bad as other developed countries, sure. The numbers are only for intentional homicide, not even counting accidents and suicides which are also made worse by the high availability of guns for everyone. Not all that remarkable is a weird way of putting it.
Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided. Protests and revolutions in France have done more to guide government power than anything ever that happened in the US. Blatant corruption, lobbying, outright incompetent representatives, abuses of power, erosion of human rights, blatant disregard for human rights. If Americans didn't fight against the Patriot act, wars, torture, what will they fight for/against? Mask mandates?
The US is not that bad compared to other New World countries. From your link we see Brazil at 27, Mexico at 29, Argentina at 5, Uruguay at 12, Greenland at 5, Panama at 9, and Costa Rica at 11. Canada is the biggest outlier, but the US still has less homicide than even relatively nice New World countries.
If you’re going to tout France’s low homicide rate of 1.2, I’d invite you to observe that Japan’s homicide rate is 0.26. Does this mean that France should adopt some aspects of Japanese law, for instance, by readopting the death penalty? Or does it simply mean that France and Japan are different countries?
In fact, I would posit that the arrow of causation can point the other way. If you live in a country with higher rates of homicide and violent crime, you will be more interested in defending yourself.
> Protests and revolutions in France have done more to guide government power than anything ever that happened in the US.
This seems like a bizarre and dubious oversimplification. France had an outright military coup in 1958 when the democratically elected government didn’t want to hold onto Algeria. While both democracy and Algerian independence worked out in the long run, the mere possibility of a military coup—something that French military officers will occasionally make threats to repeat—seems to be a major distinction that is not in France’s favor here.
Meanwhile, popular protests in the US led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ultimately even withdrawal from Vietnam. It’s not like the American public is politically powerless compared to that of any other democracy.
I winced when you started the comparison with Brazil and Mexico. Those countries may be New World, but anybody who's visited Mexico knows not to go random places alone.
In other words, if Brazil and Mexico are our points of comparison, we're... not in a situation I'd want to be in, to put it diplomatically. Reddit's running joke is that every gunfight happened in Brazil. In fact, I often wonder if most of the gunfight videos actually do come from Brazil.
It's doubly ironic because of course a large swath of the guns in what is bordering on civil war in Mexico are supplied by the US, made possible through the (lack of) gun ownership regulation.
> It's doubly ironic because of course a large swath of the guns in what is bordering on civil war in Mexico are supplied by the US, made possible through the (lack of) gun ownership regulation.
If the cartels can ship large amounts of highly illegal cargo transnationally and setup infrastructure like their own private cellular networks, I think they'd be able to acquire all the guns they need even if the US had strict gun control. It's not like they're that hard to make, especially if you're not above kidnapping some machinists.
"The cartels" is not a single organisation. Yes the largest best-organised gangs could build firearms factories - or more realistically just bribe some soldiers or cops to "lose" a few truckloads of weapons, just like they do with automatic weapons right now.
But there is a huge difference in a weapon being available by the dozens to the highest tier of the top 2-3 cartels (like machine guns or rocket launchers or IFVs are right now), and a weapon being available by the hundred thousands for anyone with a few dollars to their name!
I meant more than just criminal prosecution. For example, federal gun control checks are prohibited from being automated and there’s a fixed time limit the FBI needs to respond within or the gun can be sold. Effectively this neuters federal background checks. Similarly, there’s ways of skirting even that trivial thing through private sale and firearm shows.
The entire system is a farce and I’m surprised there’s anyone who thinks it’s not. I would have though pro gun advocates would at least know enough to acknowledge the Swiss cheese nature of the systems in place around gun ownership in America.
As the article mentions, there are people that slip through the cracks, but the foremost problem around keeping weapons out of the wrong hands has little to do with the FBI.
For example, there are a large number of guns owned by people of color who didn’t buy them legally, not because they couldn’t, but because they either didn’t know they needed to, or they didn’t trust the legal route.
That’s the kind of thing your 3% number applies to. The only way to ‘prosecute’ those offenses would be to lock up a lot of otherwise law abiding black men who are only criminals on paper because of racist gun control laws.
It’s important to understand this context before using words like ‘lackadaisical’.
If you mean things like actual violence or conspiracies to traffic firearms, these are prosecuted vigorously and the 3% figure is bullshit in that context.
I’m guessing you weren’t aware of the detail behind this figure.
"If you mean things like actual violence or conspiracies to traffic firearms, these are prosecuted vigorously and the 3% figure is bullshit in that context."
I'd love to see your data then. My data shows a different picture.
The majority of prosecutions within that 3% are possession by a felon. The next most common are ones involving a violent crime or drug offense, and possession by a person in the United states illegally. The reason prosecution is so low and doesn't include more violent offenders is because the federal government is lackadaisical and decides not to prosecute them. They instead allow the states to prosecute under state law. Even if the states prosecute under their own laws, the feds still can prosecute under the federal law if they wanted to.
Around 10k federal prosecution out of over 400k occurrence of violent crime involving a firearm. That's a terrible percentage in my mind. Links at bottom
"there are a large number of guns owned by people of color who didn’t buy them legally, not because they couldn’t, but because they either didn’t know they needed to, or they didn’t trust the legal route."
You seem to imply that they are not prohibited since they could buy them "legally". What exactly do you mean by buying them "illegally"? Do you have any data on this "large number" of minorities that bought guns illegally and how that compares to other groups?
I'd also like to hear how you believe the federal laws are racist and which ones in particular. I know there are some state laws that have racist roots. I can even agree that the structure around loss of rights should be reexamined, but isnt wholly racist (non-violent felonies should be excluded, and some recent case law is starting to move this).
> The reason prosecution is so low and doesn't include more violent offenders is because the federal government is lackadaisical and decides not to prosecute them. They instead allow the states to prosecute under state law.
Wait, so the 3% number is a lie? It’s not the percentage prosecuted. It’s the percentage prosecuted by the federal government rather than the states?
You said: “Only 3% of federal firearm offenses are prosecuted.”
Which turns out to be false. The offenses are prosecuted, just not by the federal government. You say that is ‘lackadaisical’ as if you have some justification for that, but deferring to states is a common practice in the US and indicates no such thing.
It sure looks like you are intentionally trying to mislead people, otherwise you’d probably have mentioned this up front.
As far as racism goes, it’s pretty easy to understand if you apply Ibram Kendi’s definition - if it disproportionately affects black communities, it is a racist policy.
"Which turns out to be false. The offenses are prosecuted, just not by the federal government."
You don't seem to understand how the law works. The Federal offenses are not prosecuted. The State offenses are. My statement is true.
"but deferring to states is a common practice in the US and indicates no such thing."
Lack of interest in pursuing the law would fit with the definition of lackadaisical. I've given you the stats that show they are not interested in pursuing the federal crimes.
This isn't really deferring to the states. If one is not guilty under state law, the feds may subsequently prosecute under the federal law. Even if you're found guilty at the state level, they might prosecute you just to make an example of you (Chauvin, recently). It's a sloppy way for the people in power to ignore equal application of the law by picking and choosing who deserves it, which to me undermines the very principle of rule of law.
"It sure looks like you are intentionally trying to mislead people, otherwise you’d probably have mentioned this up front."
I have not tried to mislead anyone. Perhaps you were projecting your own ideas on it based on your lack of willingness to engage in a meaningful debate. After all, you're the one calling my statements total BS, yet not providing any responses to the questions posed around sources or data to support your position or refute the data I have provided.
"As far as racism goes, it’s pretty easy to understand if you apply Ibram Kendi’s definition - if it disproportionately affects black communities, it is a racist policy."
If that's the case, everything is racist and the very definition provided is racist since it only deals with "black communities" and not others. Perhaps we can use a widely accepted definition, like from a dictionary. Then you can also explain what is being disproportionately affected along with the why and how.
So, where is your response to the requests around definitions and data for "illegally" purchased guns and their impact? Conveniently ignoring this too? I'm starting to think you are a troll.
> You don't seem to understand how the law works. The Federal offenses are not prosecuted. The State offenses are. My statement is true.
It’s only true in a narrow technical sense. You were clearly trying to give the impression that people were simply getting away with these offenses, when what is actually happening is that the federal government doesn’t see the need to prosecute people who are already being prosecuted by the states.
> It's a sloppy way for the people in power to ignore equal application of the law by picking and choosing who deserves it, which to me undermines the very principle of rule of law.
Prosecutorial discretion definitely undermines the rule of law, and is a well known people, but it’s everywhere in every justice system and has nothing to do with the government’s approach to guns.
As for the Kendi definition, I was using black in this example because most gun control laws disproportionately affect black people. Substitute other races if you like.
I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it.
We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented.
> Prosecutorial discretion definitely undermines the rule of law, and is a well known people, but it’s everywhere in every justice system and has nothing to do with the government’s approach to guns.
Prosecutorial discretion is an incredibly great thing, and is another element of the legacy bequeathed to us from the Romans by way of the English, through English Common Law.
The old statement de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles), alternatively, de minimis non curat praetor (the praetor does not concern himself with trifles) illustrates why justice must be tempered with wisdom, although not exactly the same thing as prosecutorial discretion.
The government does not have unlimited resources with which to pursue cases. When it does wield the terrible power of the justice system against a suspect, it should be in the right instances, and for the right reasons, for an example.
A good example of prosecutorial discretion is around a case where a father finds his daughter or son, actively being raped/molested. In some cases, it may go to grand jury if there is a death [1]. However, in other examples [2], a prosecutor declines to prosecute given all of the circumstances, and weighing what happened.
While there is such as thing as selective enforcement, where bias has entered the mind of some element of law enforcement and enables some to be pursued, or others not to be for some bogus reason, that is not what we are talking about here.
"We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented."
Lol where did you show that? The 3% claim is only misleading because you are applying a context to it that it was not intended for. The point is that additional federal gun laws will not be enforced because the government does not enforce the current ones, and doesn't even have the resources to do so. If anything, you have been the misleading one by presenting false information and failing to back up your (trolling) claims. You can go back to the root comment to see that they are approaching this from a light that additional federal gun laws would not be effective since the current ones are not being enforced.
"I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it."
Then, please, get to the point and tell me what is wrong with it. Stop draffing this out with unsubstantiated claims, twisting words, and flat out lies. Not all my questions were data related, but also conceptual - yet you ignore those as well (for example, you still haven't defined the 'illegal' gun purchases).
Whoa, whoa. I'm not a mod, but I don't want you to get in trouble -- a friendly note to remember that this debate really isn't worth it, and calling people names isn't going to do anything positive for you or the site.
Not my place, but unfortunately there's no contact info in your profile, so I can't email you. I'd rather risk saying it here than watch you kick a hornet's nest. Being rate limited is no fun, but it's the inevitable consequence of such behavior; penalties only increase from there.
It's easy to get heated, so a quick edit + heading outside is often the cure, for me at least.
Are you talking to me or the person calling me a liar? Trolling is not allowed, and a preponderence of the evidence shows the other person to be trolling (using false statements and not correcting them, calling others a liar, not engaging in meaningful debate, avoiding legitimate questions while continuing to attack, etc). I have full confidence in the mods here.
The venom with which you've imbued your comment is toxic to the culture of the site. One of the most important ideas is the principle of charity, which means you must interpret each argument as if they're not trolling. Flat out calling someone a troll and a liar is a personal attack, and if you keep doing it I have no doubt the mods will be along to defend the site – which is their duty. Hence, kicking the hornet's nest.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637365 is a surprisingly good primer for this, if you'd like to understand where they're coming from. Notice that "name-calling" is explicitly called out.
Having full confidence in the mods is actually a dangerous thing. I too had full confidence in the mods at one point. And, like you, I wasn't aware that I was using HN in a way that HN isn't designed for. This is a friendly reminder that you may get lucky and escape notice (HN is quite big now), but it's a matter of time before you'll get a stern talking to; the penalties only increase from there.
Don't take it personally, if it happens. It's not. And if I'm mistaken about any of this, I will happily eat crow and apologize, along with hanging up my hat of "issuing friendly warnings" in general. You could email them and ask, but the inevitable outcome is a "yes, calling people trolls and liars is off topic here; HN is for intellectual curiosity, which is a delicate thing," along with attracting attention to yourself.
In other words, don't let other people get to you. It's not worth it. Even if they are lying or trolls, you can simply say "That's not true because X" and leave it at that.
The USA also has plenty of gun production capacity. Unless you really believe 25% of Americans own 20 guns each, there is a lot of winking and nudging that guns are going south for drugs coming north.
Generally if you're going to own guns you're going to own several, just like you likely own more than one screwdriver. Small gauge shotguns for small birds, larger for larger birds, smooth bore for deer depending on state. Rifles there will be several, same for pistols. With rifles and pistols you generally practice with small caliber rounds like 22 as it's much much cheaper ($.02 / rnd vs $2), and really more pleasant (quiet, doesn't kick) than hunting rounds.
Everyone I know who has a gun has at least 4.
My friend's grandfather owns 73. In many areas that's an unremarkable number, especially for older shotguns where you didn't have interchangeable chokes.
> Rifles there will be several, same for pistols. With rifles and pistols you generally practice with small caliber rounds like 22 as it's much much cheaper ($.02 / rnd vs $2), and really more pleasant (quiet, doesn't kick) than hunting rounds.
Most of my experience, thanks to the US taxpayer to whom I am permanently indebted, is with an M60, an M240, and an M249.
I would like my wife, and my daughters to have skill with weapons too, so I was thinking about an HK417 for myself, and then getting an HK416 clone chambered in .22LR for practice.
It takes a healthy respect, and practiced expertise in weapons to build competency, and I think that relates to a number of rounds fired. Hopefully, small caliber for cost savings!
I got a 22lr slide for a 40sw sig for $300 and paid for it in about 3 trips to the range and a few thousand rounds. Benefit, it stovepipes all the time so it lets you practice failure modes all the time. Very worth it. I swap between it and real rounds to keep myself from getting recoil-shy.
I'd also recommend something like a mantis-x which lets you practice smooth trigger pulls while dry firing. It's actually a pretty smart bit of tech, it's all based on the one of the solid state accelerometers like you have in your phone.
I was thinking this would be something similar to the trigger squeeze and breathing monitors I used with weapons training VR, but this actually looks like it would be really useful, and very data driven. Appreciate the info!
> Unless you really believe 25% of Americans own 20 guns each
On average, that's entirely believable.
I think the vast majority of those people own 4-10 guns, but there are enough people who own hundreds of guns to make the mean a lot higher. In fact this is a classic example of a situation where mean can be significantly higher than median.
Brazilian gunfights between criminals and off-duty cops are a pretty big trope when it comes to videos of self-defense incidents. Of course, off-duty cops are basically the only Brazilians allowed to conceal carry.
Numbers wise, we are doing much better than Mexico and Brazil, by about the same factor that France is doing better than we are and Japan is doing better than France. US homicide rates are a lot closer to Greenland or Argentina, and significantly less than a lot of nice LatAm countries that are popular with Western expats such as Costa Rica or Panama or Uruguay. The legality and availability of firearms cannot fully explain these differences, and it’s incomplete to simply compare the US to the EU.
> I winced when you started the comparison with Brazil and Mexico.
What about Greenland?
> ...anybody who's visited Mexico knows not to go random places alone.
It's the same in the US, and basically every country in the world. Some places are dangerous, others aren't.
> ...if Brazil and Mexico are our points of comparison, we're... not in a situation I'd want to be in, to put it diplomatically.
Put it undiplomatically. What exactly do you mean by that? Draw me a picture with crayons, I want to understand clearly what this means.
An important point in the comment you replied to was that maybe demand for firearms is the result of the crime rate and not the cause. Care to address that?
> It's the same in the US, and basically every country in the world. Some places are dangerous, others aren't.
No, it's really not. I spent a number of years living in Seoul, and you can have a 25 million people metro area with virtually no areas you wouldn't go to alone at night. They may exist, somewhere, but you really have to struggle to find them. That plus no loud and aggressive people on the streets, basically never having to feel guarded or adjusting your walking path to avoid that one sketchy person.
US cities can be such stressful, on-guard, subtly "stand your ground"/"toughen up" experiences in comparison sometimes. It's draining, really just wasted energy, and as a man, makes me behave in wasy I don't actually want to.
Culture really matters. Weapon laws really matter. And national pride in places and spaces that just simply don't shape up well is something to resist.
I have a feeling that the entire "arm the populace" mindset and everything that goes along with it (the lack of interest in consensus-building displayed by wanting to maintain an exit from it, etc.) is much more likely to generate the sort of politics and politicians that would ever require civilian I arms use.
States can certainly go bad in many ways. South Korea managed to impeach its most recent bad President through peaceful protest alone (search "Park Geun-Hye protests") with basically not even a punch thrown, however.
Idk why the downvotes for orangepurple, that is basically correct. Heterogeneous societies are much harder to govern. Different kinds of people living side-by-side fight. The calmest, most in-control societies around the world are homogeneous. SK, NK, and Japan are the most ethnically homogeneous countries on earth.
Oh, and SK is an oligarchy. Essentially everything is run by a handful of families (those who run the chaebol), everybody knows about it, and it's been the status quo for years. Not that that's necessarily bad, though it isn't ideal. SK has risen from destruction to dictatorship to mostly-rich-and-democratic.
I disagree that weapon laws really matter, they matter maybe a little. Most of the variance in murder rates is more productively explained by things like homogeneity, rich-poor divide, cultures of violence, etc.
> Different kinds of people living side-by-side fight. The calmest, most in-control societies around the world are homogeneous.
Switzerland. 3-4 ethnic groups with entirely different languages as well as quite different wealth levels, managing to go without massacres and civil wars for hundreds of years. (So that their different wealth levels now look like the difference between "well-off" and "filthy rich" to their neighbours...)
Good comment. They're all white europeans and they're physically separated from each other by geography, which makes this importantly not like the U.S. for example. We can see small examples of this in cities that have longstanding (hundreds of years +) minority populations. It's not like they're mixed together, what always happens is there is a "Jewish Quarter", "Chinatown", etc. More like micro-states within a state.
edit: Maybe people thing "Good comment" was sarcastic? I genuinely meant it was a productive addition to the discussion :-)
Also, I'm not just making this up. There's significant scholarship on the question.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The cultures of SK and the US are very, very different. Particularly, south Koreans are all united by being under the constant threat of devastating war as long as almost any of them have been alive.
Which is also something that you rarely feel in daily life, although it does certainly have impact on society (mainly in terms of a period of mandatory army service for young men, similar to many European countries). I'd say the War on Terror or the Cold War had a lot more presence in the US.
IDK, there are scares every so often in SK. I remember being told to carry my passport and a couple thousand dollars in cash + memorize your color-coded evac route by the Embassy during one such crisis.
Because I can't help but get the sense that using those countries, culturally very distinct from the US, is cherry picking st best. If the "legal firearms lead to more violence and crime, and if we restrict comparison to new world highly developed countries this still holds" argument is to stand, then the comparison has to apply to every country with firearm restrictions, not just a couple. If it doesn't apply across the board then that is an indicator that culture plays an outsized role and legal status of firearms does not.
So I answered your question, now your turn, what about Argentina?
Because Canada is the closest country on earth to the US culturally and Australia and New Zealand are not far behind. Also, poverty tends to increase crime and CA/AU/NZ are closer to US economically as well, while Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa are far behind. If you want to pick one country to compare it to the US, it only makes sense to pick Canada. Argentina is very far down the list.
The main difference between Canada and US (and to a great extent Australia and New Zealand) are not cultural or economical. The main differences are in access to firearms. I fully expect Canada's murder rate to rise to US levels if US gun laws were adopted here.
There are a few very significant cultural/economic differences between the USA and Canada/Austrial/NZ.
The biggest one is that only the USA has a legacy of slavery. The USA has much higher population density as well. The USA is also somewhat more economically unequal than the other 3. The USA is more diverse than any of the other 3, especially Canada and Australia.
The US is the least diverse of those countries. Australia has 30%(2019) of foreign born resident's to NZ's 27.4%(2018),Canada's 20%(2016) and the US's 13.7%(2018)
"Foreign born" is really not the best judge of diversity in this context imo. I would instead look at the fraction of population that has European ancestry.
I have not seen many statistics linking foreign-born residents to higher crime, but locally-born oppressed minority populations (e.g. Black, Aboriginal, Native, Maori) are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system due to ongoing legacies of systemic violence.
I thought the whole point of the ongoing systemic racism debates in the US was that even after correcting for poverty, African Americans still had worse outcomes on essentially every metric from college graduation to murder rate?
While there are almost certainly small variations, the high order bit is economics. By a wide margin.
This is almost invariably left out of the equation when these things are reported.
Just like the so-called "gender wage gap", which is at best a "gender earnings gap", because pay is equivalent, dissipates almost entirely when you account for things like occupation and hours worked.
Even if you accept that differences are solely economic (this a very tough sell for raical inequality imo, it's far from fully explained by economics), that leaves you with the question of why are black people disproportionately impoverished. This is a tougher question than why women tend to work fewer hours.
And I am fully aware that these facts are a "tough sell" these days, because they don't fit the prevailing narrative.
Another one: yes, the criminal justice system is biased against blacks. However, it is vastly more biased against males. By a 6:1 margin.
And yes, I agree that the question why black people who are not recent immigrants are disproportionately impoverished is important to answer. It is important to ask the right questions if you want to get a usable answer. And I doubt there is a unifactorial answer.
Why the "who are not recent immigrants"? Black people who are recent immigrants from Africa actually do better economically than whites.
"Solely" is a thought experiment, just to highlight the importance of that question.
It's a tough sell because statistics don't back it up; there are other significant factors at play.
There are certainly some biases against men but i think you are overestimating this one. Are you accounting for the differences between men and women?
The success of African immigrants suggests that the effect really has nothing to do with skin color, but other societal and cultural factors. Luckily society and culture are both mutable.
A young black man in the 2nd perctile of income has the same chance of being incarcerated as a young white man in the 65th. The difference between the 1st percentile and 99th percentile young white men is smaller than between 80th percentile black men and white men. [1] I'm not sure which stats you are looking at, but the ones I see suggest that economics are not the biggest factor.
The gender disparity is interesting and I wasn't aware of it's severity. Thanks.
Access to guns is the main source of gun crime. 'Oppressed local minority populations' or non-european diversity or whatever other racial euphemism you wish to use has nothing to do with it.
So 13% native black population, a higher percentage native born Hispanic population, multiple generations of multiple different Asian cultures, these dont count? Why?
All your metric does is demonstrate who began allowing immigration first.
US is 76.3% white compared to Canada's 77.7% white. Still pretty similar. Actually, US's numbers are from 2019 but Canada's are from 2016. Canada's percentage should be lower than US's now, given the difference in their annual immigration numbers.
I think 76.3% white is misleading because, while the U.S. Census Bureau counts hispanic people as "white", basically no North American's intuitive model of race or ethnicity would count hispanics as white. Which is why the Census is always careful to break out non-Hispanic white.
The real comparison is non-Hispanic white to non-Hispanic white, where it becomes ~55% to ~75% or so. Hispanic people in the U.S. are easily visually differentiable, most often have one or more languages aside from, or instead of, English and come from cultures that are markedly different than mainstream U.S. culture.
It's getting into the weeds a little, but there are also likely differences between local vanquished populations, immigrants and their descendants who arrive voluntarily by air/sea, those who arrive voluntarily by land and those who arrive involuntarily.
Canada and the USA are close overall, but Canada's immigrants are much more likely to be educated professionals than those coming to the USA. And since Canada never implemented widespread slavery, there really isn't an analog to the experience of black Americans. I think that is a very big factor.
That's true for every sufficiently-large section of the world. But different places have different statistical properties.
Look, my grandpa took me shooting when I was young. I remember doing target practice under a bridge when I was like 7, using a freakin' magnum revolver of all things. It was next to a very small river, and someone further downstream was trying to fish. I asked gramps "Do you think he heard us?" and he laughed "I don't think anybody didn't hear us."
That's the kind of culture I come from. I suspect in this thread there are at least three factions: the pro-guns, the anti-guns, and the undecideds.
As someone who was raised from an early age to be pro-gun, I do see the merits. But it's important that we acknowledge the downsides. If, statistically, America is so screwed up that you need to compare to Brazil and Mexico before the numbers start looking sort of reasonable, there may be a correlation with gun ownership the way that smoking may be correlated with cancer.
> If, statistically, America is so screwed up that you need to compare to Brazil and Mexico before the numbers start looking sort of reasonable, there may be a correlation with gun ownership the way that smoking may be correlated with cancer.
Compared to Mexico and Brazil, the US numbers look fucking awesome.
Compared to Greenland and Argentina, the US numbers look perfectly reasonable.
Compared to France, maybe we look bad. But compared to Japan, even France looks bad.
If I was trying to convince the French to reinstate the death penalty by pointing out that their homicide rate was 4-6 times as bad as Japan, and the French said “yeah but our homicide rate is 1/4 that of the US”, they would have a point. Single factors that map onto popular political controversies aren’t as big a factor as broader social and cultural factors. If you look at those factors, Japan is not a comparable country to France and France is not a comparable country to the United States.
Basically your argument boils down to: The USA is substantially an undeveloped shithole full of corrupt/ineffectual law enforcement, barely functional or legitimate government, broke unemployed people incapable of solving problems peacefully with nothing to lose, and powerful thugs beyond the reach of the law, so we should feel great pride that we aren’t quite as violent and dangerous as places where the gangsters are the primary source of local force and the law enforcement / military are essentially gangsters themselves.
I guess....
But on the flip side, the USA is almost incomparably richer than those countries (in natural resources, infrastructure, human capital, ...), has a much better developed and more legitimate set of public institutions, has a tradition of settling disputes via political/legal processes instead of gang warfare, and in most ways looks much more like wealthy industrialized countries than new developing-country slums.
So, instead of giving up and patting ourselves on the back because it could always be worse, as an alternative we could, y'know, try to get the most desperate people access to basic essentials required for human flourishing, and aim to reduce the levels of violence and corruption over time, the way people have successfully done in many other countries around the world.
> Basically your argument boils down to: The USA is substantially an undeveloped shithole full of corrupt/ineffectual law enforcement, barely functional or legitimate government, broke unemployed people incapable of solving problems peacefully with nothing to lose, and powerful thugs beyond the reach of the law, so we should feel great pride that we aren’t quite as violent and dangerous as places where the gangsters are the primary source of local force and the law enforcement / military are essentially gangsters themselves.
>> That's true for every sufficiently-large section of the world
Well I think Mexico is a sufficiently-large section of the world that statements like "anybody who's visited Mexico knows not to go random places alone" should be called out, don't you agree?
I would say poverty has more to do with the murder rate than anything else.
If you want to go and rob houses or join a gang, you'll get a gun, legally or illegally. This happens everywhere, not only where guns are legal.
If you can't get a gun, you'll get a big knife or a baseball bat.
The USA is rich in GDP per capita but has patches with poor people with little to lose.
In many EU countries there is far less people with little to lose, even among the poor ones.
Crime in EU is, similarly, disproportionally caused by those who have little to lose, eg. illegal immigrants.
Murder clearance rate by police has more to do with murder rate.
You are much more likely to get away with murder in the US (where clearance rates are 60% at best) than you are in Japan or the UK (where clearance rates are above 90%).
> but anybody who's visited Mexico knows not to go random places alone
Canadian here... isn't that true in most of the highly-populated areas in the US as well? And, to be honest, some parts of Canada as well; I definitely know a neighbourhood not to far from where I live where I'm highly unlikely to walk in the dark.
It's going to be true almost everywhere (not Japan? Switzerland?)
The real question is to what extent is it true? I think stumbling into such a place at night in the U.S. would be quite hard, Canada even harder. In Mexico, my feeling is you really ought to plan. You can't just drive from Point A to Point B across the country at night, whereas in the rest of North America you sure can.
" if Brazil and Mexico are our points of comparison"
Almost half of all US homicides are drug/gang related, so obviously there will be links to south american countries where these enterprises also operate.
If you want to avoid high crime, move north. Northern states have a homicide rate roughly half the national average.
You ever heard of Chicago? Up to the minute crime statistics in this northern state city with some of the most restrictive gun control can easily be found. [1.]
> The US is not that bad compared to other New World countries. From your link we see Brazil at 27, Mexico at 29, Argentina at 5, Uruguay at 12, Greenland at 5, Panama at 9, and Costa Rica at 11. Canada is the biggest outlier, but the US still has less homicide than even relatively nice New World countries.
"On a par with Argentina" is still not great. The US is doing a lot worse than comparably wealthy countries.
> Does this mean that France should adopt some aspects of Japanese law
Yes.
> for instance, by readopting the death penalty?
No. Why on earth would that be what you'd jump to? The death penalty is very rarely applied in Japan and, if you look more widely, not at all correlated with low homicide rates.
You are comparing the USA, a developed country, purely to developing countries. I mean, ya, the USA does better than much poorer countries, but can’t compare to any other developed ones. And just because all developed countries don’t have a unified homogenous homicide rate doesn’t really provide any excuse why America does so much more poorly.
I believe the problem with our developed country being compared to other developed countries goes beyond murder rate, wouldn't you agree?
We have less mobility and opportunity between the ranks of our society than some of these other countries.
That lack of equality makes our richest very well off, but our poorest live in literal third world conditions (as Alabama was designated two years ago.)
To be honest I don't see a problem with comparing us to both, but with the consideration that there is an awful lot of variance between the different subsections of our society.
> You are comparing the USA, a developed country, purely to developing countries. I mean, ya, the USA does better than much poorer countries, but can’t compare to any other developed ones.
Almost every country in the world is much poorer than the USA. Most European countries have a smaller per-capita GDP than Mississippi, the poorest US state.
So you agree that social problems are independent of GDP and have no explanation for why you think America should be embarrassed? Seems like just baseless anti-Americanism.
> Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided.
I’m not sure how you mean adorable and misguided.
1) If you mean it would be ineffective against a military invasion, I have to disagree. The military has never won a guerrilla war, let alone one on their own turf. Think Afghanistan on steroids with how many guns are in the states.
2) If you mean that being politically active would be far more effective though then I 100% agree.
I know some gun owners in the states, and my impression is that for some it quickly turns into standard consumerism. Maybe their first gun was for self defence, but not the 20th. They can obsess over their guns, similar to how people obsess over other gizmos like the latest iPhone etc.
Comparing the US to lawless, poor countries doesn't help make your claim.
The more rational 'New World' comparisons would be Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and guess what: very low murder, very low rates of gun ownership.
"Does this mean that France should adopt some aspects of Japanese law, for instance, by readopting the death penalty? Or does it simply mean that France and Japan are different countries?"
Or more rationally, they could just completely ban firearms and make them totally inaccessible to anyone, as they are in Japan.
(And also create a super conformist, rule-following slightly authoritarian culture)
But at least the gun laws themselves in Japan are extremely rigid which hints pretty strongly that restrictions definitely work.
Wether those can be pragmatically applied is another question.
> The more rational 'New World' comparisons would be Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and guess what: very low murder, very low rates of gun ownership.
Who could have imagined that British colonies who didn’t violently overthrow the British colonial government would end up being less violent overall?
Also, who would have guessed that former British colonies that didn’t have millions of African slaves shipped in for cheap agricultural labor and treated as a perpetual underclass for centuries would be more peaceful places to live?
The US has the gun fetish because it has a perpetual racialized underclass, among other reasons. You're right the violence is tied to its history. But so are the guns. You cannot separate the two.
As others have pointed out; personal firearms are pretty useless as a vehicle for resisting state oppression and tyranny. But they're useful for stopping slave revolts or, more contemporarily, guarding your McMansion.
The problem in the US isn't the right to bear arms. It's that the wrong people are bearing them. The militia types are the authoritarian aggressors that they themselves fantasize about resisting.
Yeah both of these points are revisionist bullshit. Go read the primary sources. The gun fetish comes from our origin story being successfully overthrowing the British with civilian firearms.
As to effectiveness: the Taliban just recaptured their country from a US backed military. The point of civilian gun ownership is to force citizen soldiers to decide between defecting and killing their neighbors. That’s exactly what happened in the Bangladesh independence war. The revolutionaries knocked over military depots in Dhaka to acquire firearms. Once the fighting started, Bangladeshis in the Pakistani military defected.
While it's a bit much to suggest 'guns are because racism', I think it's a reasonable point to consider.
Also, though there is some legitimacy with the 'Guns Stop Tyranny' issue ... it's unlikely to happen.
The US will not be invaded by anyone, and the US government with all it's flaws is considerably more legitimate than most of the people with guns and has been for more than a century.
If the US falls, it will be due to crumbling from within, and given what has happened in the last few years, I'm afraid gun owners, however responsible and conscientious, are as likely to 'Rise Up' against a pack of falsehoods and populism than they are any kind of legitimate reality.
> While it's a bit much to suggest 'guns are because racism', I think it's a reasonable point to consider.
Why? What’s the evidence other than juxtaposition? Arabs are also nuts about guns. People from pastoral honor cultures (like the Scots Irish ancestors of many southerners and Appalachians: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/10/the-sco...) often are. Is that caused by racism too?
> Also, though there is some legitimacy with the 'Guns Stop Tyranny' issue ... it's unlikely to happen.
This is “end of history” bullshit. You need guns because having to kill people is a central part of the human experience. Tens of thousands of my people died at the hands of the Pakistani army because they had to fight with sticks and rocks until they knocked over some military depots to acquire firearms: https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/bangladesh-liberation-.... The Afghans have now expelled two superpowers from their country with handheld weapons. Guns work.
All of that stuff could happen in America too. Because history isn’t over, civilization is a thin veneer over nature, and there’s nothing fundamentally different about us versus them.
1) During slavery, guns were essential in keeping Black people under the thumb. So for at least 1/2 of US history, guns were an essential fabric of society for that reason.
In much the same way you could argue US gun culture comes from being 'at the frontier' - well - slavery was another big artifact of history.
When the slaves were freed they were a huge portion of the population, and there was every reason to believe there would be retribution and revolts.
Since then, there has been ongoing efforts to suppress that community, which rationally might engender violence.
In pop culture, African Americans have been portrayed as violent, which can make people afraid, and since the 1980s there's been a huge uptick in violence within that community, which also makes people afraid (though the violence is mostly intraracial not interacial).
2) "This is “end of history” bullshit. You need guns because having to kill people is a central part of the human experience. "
Your arguments here are very poor.
First, the Army 'has guns' as a legitimate form of managed violence. Keeping the Army in check is a central part of managing the powers in a liberal democracy. If the Army gets out of hand, it's going to be very bad.
'Look what the Taliban' did is a horrendous argument, because the Taliban are totalitarian murderous overlords who murder for their own ideology and not the wellbeing of their fellow countrymen.
You're basically arguing that 'Guns Work Because Look How Well The Nazis Murdered Jews!'
That's an argument against the population having guns, because it seems to me the American Right Wing Taliban are the group the most likely to use guns and for all the wrong reasons.
"All of that stuff could happen in America too."
Yes, but it's unlikely to happen because the 'government goes bad'. It's going to happen because a demagogue like Donald Trump will rile up the gun-wading population to commit violence on the basis of a pack of lies. It won't start like that, it may just be a protest, but if starts to get out of hand, some blood is spilled and then each side uses that as justification for increasing the threshold.
The last 6 months have revealed that Trump pressured the military hard for the 82cnd Airborne to be used against BLM protesters and the Pentagon refused. Thankfully, that's the Army standing up against authoritarian leaders.
I don't think there has been in all of American history an example of where American citizens took up arms against the government in situation wherein they had some kind of moral legitimacy.
Liberal Democracy stay intact with education, transparency, oversight, a free and rational press, legitimate institutions, independent judiciary. If it delves into individual militias fighting against government units 'it's all over'. Americans can then expect the quality of life of rural Pakistan.
While there is some argument for 'Guns v. Tyranny' I can't see how it works out in practicality. One idea might be to require the government a Congressional vote to send any troops anywhere, for any reason, to further restrict US forces from being deployed in the homeland etc..
The US had a huge amount of help from France overthrowing the British. Including full support of the French navy and large amounts of French professional soldiers. An inconvenient fact that Americans try hard to forget.
So that refines the question to: how important was the private ownership of guns in the American victory at Saratoga? Well, the Wikipedia article referenced above says that, "militiamen and supplies continued to pour into the American camp, including critical increases in ammunition, which had been severely depleted in the first battle."
"General Fraser was mortally wounded in this phase of the battle, . . . The fall of Fraser and the arrival of Ten Broeck's large militia brigade (which roughly equaled the entire British reconnaissance force in size), broke the British will, and they began a disorganized retreat toward their entrenchments."
So that got me curious about what "militia" meant exactly during this time frame. Well, General Ten Broeck's Wikipedia page says that 2 years prior to the action described in the last paragraph General Ten Broeck was colonel of the Albany County militia, which has a Wikipedia page, which starts as follows: "The Albany County militia was the colonial militia of Albany County, New York. Drawn from the general male population, by law all male inhabitants from 15 to 55 had to be enrolled in militia companies."
>To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows ... if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter.
There is a big difference: The US Government will never leave the US. However everybody (including the Taliban) knew that it was just a question of time before the US would exit Afghanistan.
It's common knowledge that a lot of early gun control legislation was passed to prevent ethnic groups like the black panthers from gaining equal footing with groups who would harass them. Much safer to lynch an unarmed man after all. Claiming to be motivated by the plight of poor minorities given that history seems in remarkably poor taste.
It's 'poor taste' to misrepresent history as much as you have in your statement. There were no groups running around 'lynching' Black people during the Black Panther era, moreover, the Black Panther era saw an explosion in gun crime across the US that was acute among the African American community. As much as gun laws are a part of the problem, the vast disparity in gun crime among different groups can't be avoided either.
>There were no groups running around 'lynching' Black people during the Black Panther era
No, but some of the very earliest gun control laws were aimed at only black citizens and were enacted during lynching's heyday. Gun control in America has a very sordid history when viewed through a racial lens, and its ties to the civil rights era and the drug war are less blatant but still insidious.
> The US has the gun fetish because it has a perpetual racialized underclass, among other reasons. You're right the violence is tied to its history. But so are the guns. You cannot separate the two.
The American gun fetish dates back to the earliest arrivals in the New World, in all areas of the country, both initial northern states, and later southern states, and the West. If you haven't spent enough time in the wild to encounter a grizzly, a 300 pound boar, a wolf pack, a coyote pack, or a solitary mountain lion intent upon considering you as a food source - consider yourself lucky.
> As others have pointed out; personal firearms are pretty useless as a vehicle for resisting state oppression and tyranny. But they're useful for stopping slave revolts or, more contemporarily, guarding your McMansion.
Au Contraire
The Taliban, freedom fighters, or Terrorists, perhaps both, just seized pretty much the entirety of Afghanistan with roughly ~70k light infantry, against a force roughly 4x their numbers with much heavier armament. [1] This, after having fought to a standstill one of the nations with the best fighting force in a long guerilla warfare, vs airpower, advanced weaponry, drones, armor, you name it.
Because they had willpower.
> The problem in the US isn't the right to bear arms. It's that the wrong people are bearing them. The militia types are the authoritarian aggressors that they themselves fantasize about resisting.
Flyover country has neither the presidency, the House, or the Senate, but the US wants not for authoritarianism.
The unfortunate, and tragic fact is that the vast majority of the gun violence in the US happens in inner cities [2], typically with repressive gun laws. Sure, there will be the occasional red state nutjob too.
If you truly and deeply cared about the horrible gun violence, you might ask why, where, for what reason, who, and why don't we know more about it? [3]
You might seek to grasp a true understanding of the culture involved, the economics, education, or lack thereof, opportunities denied, the crime involved, or not, and to paint us a full picture.
But you don't.
Instead you leave us with a shallow political attack on others. Demonizing, rather the engaging in a civic manner. Pontificating, rather than questioning. Politicizing, rather than conversing.
Take a break from the keyboard and have a socially-distant coffee with others. Your others. Have two.
People get way too wound up over guns. This is a rural/urban issue. Where I live (edge of civilization) the police response time is around 20 minutes. That is too long to deter or prevent most crime. So most rural people own a gun or two and for some reason the bad guys don't mess with us much. Taking my gun rights away makes my family a lot less safe so...
> You might seek to grasp a true understanding of the culture involved
Please do the same. Your entire post is dripping with an urban elitism and does not show any hint that you might consider someone else's point of view. Enjoy that coffee.
> Your entire post is dripping with an urban elitism
That is kind of ironic, since I am isolated in a deeply blue area in a deeply blue workplace that eschews the local orthodoxy
The difference is that I don't assign an urban or rural divide around this. I've lived in the sticks where first responders were an hour away, in the city, suburbia, and warzones. But, it was never locale only that divided those who wanted weapons vs those that did not. There were other divides there, mainly a cognitive and worldview one.
Many of my friends have had weapons, for both reasons of upbringing, hunting, and also, experience in the combat arms.
However, I would be remiss not to realize some of the underlying reasons for the high crime in the close-enough-to-be-concerned urban blight which made itself into so many rap songs. I am not deluded - there is a vast difference in opportunities, and good/bad influences in varying locations. Due to good fortune, I happened to be in an area that pushed people towards better choices. But, many people I knew did not have that good fortune, and so were more inclined to a different path merely because of that. They were not forced to make a series of bad decisions, but the opportune to become was definitely readily available.
> and does not show any hint that you might consider someone else's point of view.
I consider everyone's views, since, they are up front everyday. For the most part, the Uniparty is split into two dominant factions with subcliques from there on out. I am neither.
I try to balance my perspectives in both the company I keep, and the echo chambers from which I drink. I value what other perspectives bring to the table and how they think about things. While I might not share all of them, and I maintain a measure of independence, I deeply appreciate other worldviews.
> The problem in the US isn't the right to bear arms. It's that the wrong people are bearing them. The militia types are the authoritarian aggressors that they themselves fantasize about resisting.
Authoritarians control institutions. What do the “wrong people” control? If the January 6 nutters had taken the capital, who would have supported them? General Milley? The national guards of DC, MD, or VA? Any of the country’s corporations or other institutions? You’re confusing the Whiskey Rebellion for the Beerhall Putsch.
Maybe give some consideration to the possibility that what’s really happening is that you’re a resident of the Capital clutching your pearls at the “threat” posed by people in District 12.
This speculative argument falls flat in the face of actual data.
More effective and regulated gun control and less access to guns is 100% consistent with less gun crime.
That there was a revolution in 1777 doesn't change the fact both the UK and US were fairly equally involved in other kinds of political violence, I mean, you do realize the UK have been at war with others and themselves since the dawn of time? That they had their own 'revolution' and a Republic 100 years before the US?
The Japanese have quite a violent history as well and yet have zero gun crime.
Most regions in the US don't directly have a relationship with slavery and even accommodating for elevated levels of crime among those communities - gun violence is still very high.
Guns are widespread and available to almost anyone in the US, and there's a huge amount of gun crime.
Canada/Australia - more restrictions, less gun crime.
Europe - quite heavily restricted, a small amount of gun crime.
Japan - effectively totally banned, and almost 0 gun crime.
Switzerland has militia training and ownership, but it's generally not pistols, and they definitely don't carry guns for personal defence. Their rifles are locked up in the basement.
Mexico has tight gun laws, but they're not enforced.
While there are concerns about freedoms, the formation of 'tyranny' etc. to contend with, there's no doubt that effective and highly restricted gun control has a significant impact.
To anyone who's lived in Europe, Can/Aus/NZ and the US, it's just blindingly obvious, it's not a rhetorical argument at all, it boils down to trying to understand the reasoning of people who have difficulty conceding the reality of how safe it really is when there aren't that many guns floating around.
Most police in the UK don't even carry guns, that's how real the implications are ... and it's not cause 'they didn't have a revolution'.
EDIT - FYI here are the data points:
USA: 4.5/100K gun homicides, 1.2 guns per/capita
Canada: 0.5/100K gun homicides and 0.4 guns per/capita
France: 0.1/100K gun homicides and 0.2 guns per/capita
Japan: 0.0/100K (!!!) gun homicides and 0.006 guns per/capita
It's crystal clear and unambiguous: for countries that have civil infrastructure, general lawfulness and the means to affect social policy etc. - fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. Obviously, there will be variations (i.e. Scotland has a crazy amount of stabbings) but prevalence of guns is a firs order issue.
> More effective and regulated gun control and less access to guns is 100% consistent with less gun crime.
So what? I don't care about "less gun crime"; I care about "less violent crime".
Talking about the subset of crime, violence, death, and injury that's caused by firearms is fundamentally dishonest. You could argue by the exact same logic that the lack of passenger trains in the US reduces train suicides compared to Japan. The specific tools are not the fucking issue.
> I mean, you do realize the UK have been at war with others and themselves since the dawn of time? That they had their own 'revolution' and a Republic 100 years before the US?
Sure. For instance, England and Scotland were intermittently at war for centuries, which resulted in a lot of the people living in the English/Scottish border regions developing a particularly violent way of life. These people were a huge pain in the neck after the unification of Great Britain. So a whole lot of them got shipped across the Atlantic Ocean to America.
You know who else the British shipped to America? Violent criminals. This was one of the reasons we declared independence, actually. People think of Australia as a former penal colony, but that only started because we stopped letting them ship people here.
Who else came here? The Puritans, whose other accomplishments included such things as burning witches and violently establishing that English Republic you alluded to.
The normal, peaceful, law-abiding Brit who wasn't particularly interested in violence or religious fanaticism? Those are the guys who stayed behind in Britain.
New Zealand does not have a “very low” rate of gun ownership. It has ~ 26 firearms per 100 people, well short of the USAs 120 but still ranked 20th in the world.
I don't think it's bad in general considering the size of the country and especially considering the fact that we have hundreds of millions of civilian owned guns (23 million sold last year, and even more sold this year already). When you compare guns to other stuff like drunk driving it shows how blown out of proportion the problem is.
I would expect drunk-driving deaths to far exceed firearm homicides, and it's honestly shocking that firearm homicides are that high. I think the stats show that it's not blown out of propertion.
Why would you expect that when drunk driving gets practically no attention at all? It's even socially acceptable and joked about within certain cultural circles.
That's exactly my point. Drink driving is not uncommon, to the point where it's acceptable to some parts of society. But no part of society believes intent to kill with a gun is acceptable, yet despite the heavy scrutiny it receives, firearm homicides are still way higher than drunk driving deaths.
I know that these numbers are not directly comparable, but given the deadly nature of automobiles in general, I expected drunk-driving deaths to be somewhere around 50000 per year.
Then why isn't there any serious discussion about tighter alcohol regulation then? The CDC says that alcohol abuse in the US results in ~95,000 deaths per year, combined with drunk driving thats over 100k deaths, thats significantly higher than all gun deaths. On top of that it's difficult to argue there is any utility to it at all beyond recreational use. Where are the cries to ban alcohol?? Wouldn't it be worth banning it even if it saved just one life???
The same reason there isn't serious discussion about voter competency tests: US politics is traumatised by the specific history of that particular kind of law.
(Though IMO you're focusing on the wrong half. Drink-driving deaths don't show that alcohol is dangerous, they show that cars are dangerous - you only have to look at the number of non-alcohol-related driving deaths to see that.)
True, although it's really the driver at fault, and the next logical thing to blame would be the alcohol. The connection between drugs/alcohol and gun violence gets completely overlooked though so why not blame the cars.
> Huh? Are you implying that simply existing in the “New World” would cause the baseline expected murder rate to be higher for some reason?
That’s the pattern we empirically see with most New World countries, and if you consider the question with an open mind for a few minutes while considering the history of Western settlement of the Americas you can come up with a few decent hypotheses as far as what the reasons might be.
Another way of looking at it is proximity to the United States, its massive supply of guns and "war on drugs", which somehow seems to be correlated to an increased homicide rate.
The homicide rate in Puerto Rico is super high, comparable to other news world countries, but it’s an island and has almost no guns.
Also, the US homicide rate was extremely high compared to Europe long before gun laws in other countries or the drug war. It was 10x higher than the UK at the turn of the 20th century.
It means different countries have different cultures that value life and violence in different ways.
And that your immediate neighbors will have more of an influence on that than a country on the other side of the world, especially if there's a substantial amount of immigration.
In the case of the US, I'd say it's more-so, because so much of the violence south of our border is directly related to moving things and people over it.
I'm not actually sure how accurate that is. France has an ethnically and religiously heterogeneous population, high levels of immigration from Africa, and open borders with the rest of the EU.
Open borders with the rest of the EU is...Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium. And adorable Andorra. Oh, and Italy. All of which are comparable to Mexico where it counts, of course. /s
France is quite heterogenous. The "homogeneous = less crime" argument is a bit xenophobic/racist at best, and not quite true.
Societies with an impoverished underclass is what causes higher crime rates, regardless of whether or not the underclass is mainly comprised of ethnic minorities. France (heterogenous) and Japan (homogenous) take better care of their poor than the US (heterogenous) and Guatemala (homogenous), which is what causes the disparity in murder rates.
> The "homogeneous = less crime" argument is a bit xenophobic/racist at best, and not quite true.
Why the ad hominem? It stifles conversation. I think it is entirely legitimate to make the claim that ethnic, and actually more so religious/worldview heterogeneity can cause conflict. Heterogeneity is inversely correlated with trust because trust is formed through understanding and appropriate agreement and these differences often mean misunderstanding and disagreement. You can talk about dialoging as a way to reduce conflict, but even when understanding exists, when one norm must prevail and two groups are in conflict, this will leads to problems. The more fundamental the conflict, the worse it gets.
Look at Yugoslavia. Are Croats, Serbs, and Bosnians "racially" different? No. Language? Not really. So the source of conflict is religious.
The political conflict in the US today is mostly religious in nature, where "religious" is broadly understood.
I don't think France is very heterogeneous. I'd guess it's 80-85% "white" (mostly French, some Italian + other Europeans), remainder mostly North African immigrants, half of whom live in Ile-de-France (Paris metro area). Anywhere outside of a couple cities in France is suuuuuuper homogeneous.
Immigrant populations in both France and the United States are in the mid-teens, percentage-wise. [1]
Japan's immigrant population stands at 2.0%, and Guatamala's is 0.5%.
I'm aware that there are other measures of diversity, but many of the comments here were mentioning the United States's border with Mexico specifically as a reason for its high murder rate, which doesn't seem to hold up once you dig into the numbers.
I think the other measures of diversity are the ones that are important. For instance, an influx of Canadian immigrants to the U.S. would, I expect, cause no problems at all because Canada is by and large very culturally similar to the U.S.
The border is important in my thinking mainly because corruption and organized crime are endemic to Mexico, though immigration of people from a significantly different ethnicity+culture is also important in the U.S. picture.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. These are facts about France vs. the U.S. Maybe "developing" is a /little/ strong for Mexico, but I take your point to be more about Central America generally.
PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner.
I fully agree with anti-gun crowd that having vast majority of guns in hands of citizens (legally or illegally) leads to more deaths. USA's comparison with Angola is actually more serious than the numbers tell you because you need to realize that USA has far better medical response and doctors trained to handle gunshot wounds. So to truly compare Angola and USA you might have to increase USA's number with those who are shot instead of dead.
Having said that I am totally for guns in the hands of citizens. Mostly because I think it acts as a bulwark against further restrictions. After 2nd ammendment you will be seeing "commons sense rules for free speech" like we have seen in UK, Canada and Australia.
Every constitutional right has its price. Anyone who fails to see this is not honest. Give police the power to search you without warrant and we almost certainly will solve more crimes. Force individual to testify against themselves and we will most certainly keep more child rapists in jail. But then as a society we need to figure out the trade-off and in my personal case I would rather keep my guns and face a 5/1000 chance of dying of gunshot wound than surrender my guns.
> Blatant corruption, lobbying, outright incompetent representatives, abuses of power, erosion of human rights, blatant disregard for human rights. If Americans didn't fight against the Patriot act, wars, torture, what will they fight for/against? Mask mandates?
In my experience USA lot less corrupt than most other countries. Lobbying overall is a net good thing for a democratic society. Representatives are incompetent everywhere. American abuse of power is nowhere close to what EU or AU does to its citizens. I am not sure wha erosion of human rights you are talking in USA.
> After 2nd ammendment you will be seeing "commons sense rules for free speech" like we have seen in UK, Canada and Australia.
This is extremely shaky reasoning. You've done nothing to prove that the 2nd amendment is actually protecting these rights, only mentioned the existence of two facts and asserted a causative relationship between them. Have there been attempts to introduce censorship in the US that have been defeated by armed activists? Were there violent uprisings against censorship in the UK, Canada, or Australia that failed due to a lack of access to arms? The 4th amendment was gutted into oblivion in pursuit of the War on Terror -- why didn't the armed citizenry protect our rights?
No, because despite whatever the talkshows say, both parties and especially the judiciary are largely committed to preserving constitutional rights. There's disagreements on finer points of where the lines are drawn, but that's handled in courts and legislation, and rarely ever guns ablazing.
Compare to Hong Kong, which is not governed by consent of the governed.
> No, because despite whatever the talkshows say, both parties and especially the judiciary are largely committed to preserving constitutional rights
Wasn't there an impeachment procedure blatantly sabotaged by one of said parties like last year? Didn't the same party blatantly say they're stacking the supreme court in their favour up to the last possible moment, in an extremely hypocritical manner after refusing to accept Obama's nominees in his last year? Didn't multiple US presidents abuse and violate human rights with illegal wars and torture, mass surveillance? Didn't a US president order the murder of a US citizen without due process? Didn't a US state create a blatantly unconstitutional law for witch hunting women ? From across the pond, it seems that most US politicians in power, mostly from one of the parties, are wiping their asses with the the US constitution.
There is a lot of historical evidence that rulers were afraid of an armed population and fear alone is enough in most cases. What are you expecting here?
> PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner.
I don't understand the pride bit.
It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort.
(I'm in Australia, where we have some truly horrendous legislation, but I totally agree with our gun ownership laws here, and echo other people's observations that gun ownership does not seem to equate to, or ineluctably lead to, better laws / more freedoms outside the right 'to own lethal weapons' itself.)
Perhaps I could interest you in some Iain M Banks (taken from Excession) :
"It could see that - by some criteria - a warship, just by the
perfectly articulated purity of its purpose, was the most beautiful
single artifact the Culture was capable of producing, and at the same
time understand the paucity of moral vision such a judgement implied.
To fully appreciate the beauty of a weapon was to admit
to a kind of shortsightedness close to blindness, to confess to
a sort of stupidity. The weapon was not itself; nothing was solely itself.
The weapon, like anything else, could only finally be judged by
the effect it had on others, by the consequences it produced in
some outside context, by its place in the rest of the universe.
By this measure the love, or just the appreciation of weapons was a
kind of tragedy."
I can't speak to the parent, but I take pride in self-reliance, and taking responsibility for securing and defending the well-being of myself, my family, neighbors, and community.
I also am a volunteer, state-certified structure firefighter, and take pride in that for the exact same reason.
You might find it interesting that, as part of our classroom instruction, my structure firefighting class was asked how many of us owned guns — all of us raised a hand.
This mirrors my experience in the broader fire service.
> Perhaps I could interest you in some Iain M Banks (taken from Excession).
I love Iain M Banks' Culture series, but they live within a utopian, post-scarcity benevolent dictatorship managed by AIs with powers verging on that of a demigod.
We most certainly do not.
As for the quote? Any tool can only be fully appreciated within the context of its intended purpose, and the effects that it can produce in the world around us.
The value of a gun as a tool is a tragedy, but the tragedy isn't the gun, but the necessity for one, and it's a tragedy inherent in our mortal existence.
> the tragedy isn't the gun, but the necessity for one, and it's a tragedy inherent in our mortal existence.
Well, they're sure not necessary here in Australia. I don't think I've ever met someone who owns one, certainly no-one has ever mentioned owning a gun to me. It's just not a thing. Seems to be just "a tragedy inherent" in the USA.
I was watching every day, and supporting, the George Floyd protests, and after a while those in Seattle and Portland.. until Raz got machine guns from his car and starting handing them out. WTF?! That was the plan?! I switched off, disgusted. That suddenly all seemed insane.
Like it does hearing people from the US on HN talking about guns. It just sounds crazy. I read on HN someone from the US saying Australians wouldn't be under lockdown if only we had guns etc. It just sounds insane, disturbing even reading that. What am I gonna do with a gun?!
But maybe, when everyone else has a gun, you feel you need for one too. Just know that it's not like that in every country.
Although if my country had spent most of the last 120 years invading other countries, subverting their politics, stealing their wealth, like the US has, I'd have urges to defend myself from it with a gun, too, maybe, I don't know. It's weird though. US violence has been focused outwards, on other countries, yet to hear people from the US, they never heard about that, don't feel involved or responsible, yet are obsessed with the possibility of US government violence happening to them one day.
I don't claim to understand the situation, just I'm very glad not to live in a country where everyone has a gun. OK, now I will stop reading gun stories/comments on HN. Good luck!
I think Australia is a great example of what happens when guns are given up. You have a government that’s going on witch hunts for covid cases and exerting extreme authoritarian pressure for remarkably low covid rates.
Some would say it’s them testing the limits of their populace. What are they gonna do? Protest? That’s illegal when in lockdown.
So you're saying that covid measures wouldn't exist if there were more guns, and that would be a good thing?
Maybe the remarkable low covid rates are there because of the authoritarian pressure? Authoritarian is never a good word but if people simply won't listen when it comes to matters of public health (that affect everyone - an overflowing ICU is never a good thing) and thus endanger the health of others then they have to live with the consequences. It's not a matter of politic, opinion or ideology.
The suggestion that this should be responded to with guns is just the most perfect own goal.
Your response to the accusation that a government is being authoritarian is that it’s OK because there’s “a lot” of places with “complete” freedom? That’s bordering on “this is good for Bitcoin” levels of Stockholm syndrome.
The majority of Australians grumble about it but agree with the lockdown restrictions. Looking at the insane number of people dying from COVID in the US compared with Australia I understand why.
This reminds me of my first year of high school in Australia. I had come from the USA and everyone wanted to hear my war stories about people shooting each other (and for me to say 'Watermelon' over and over). It completely blew my mind how misinformed Aussies (granted we were young) were about life in America. It's a huge country, you gotta keep in mind the news and action movies sensationalize and glorify isolated violent events.
I'm not sure when that was, but in a contemporary setting, the line of questioning (and fascination about what's been normalised) would be highly reasonable.
Consider the frighteningly lengthy list of school shootings in the USA. [0]
I note that Wikipedia does not have an entry for school shootings in, say, Australia. Or in fact most other places.
I'm seeing a figure of ~ 1300 school shootings in the USA since 1970, so it doesn't appear to be an entirely modern problem.
In the USA (contemporary, again, sorry I'm not sure what era your experiences are from) there's ~30-40 (children-aged) victims of gun-related violence a day, with ~8 of those resulting in death. [1]
From outside that society, how people put up with this, living with regular active shooter drills, managing the additional anxiety, etc, is definitely going to be of interest.
the US does seem to have a rather unique problem with school shootings. it's certainly worth investigating why this is the case and considering countermeasures. at the same time, and I know this is a cold thing to say, the issue really gets blown out of proportion for political reasons. it's about as likely for a US student to get killed in a school shooting as it is for you to get hit by a bolt of lightning.
> From outside that society, how people put up with this, living with regular active shooter drills, managing the additional anxiety, etc, is definitely going to be of interest.
I was in grade school not that long ago, and quite frankly, there wasn't much to "put up with". we did active shooter drills as or less frequently than fire drills (not often). I don't remember ever feeling anxiety about being shot at school, and I am a lot more anxious than the average person.
I know a few friends of mine who are extremely risk averse: they live boring safe lives and think I'm crazy going to those dangerous mountain bike trails. They don't seem to get the concept of freedom: their freedom ends with a choice of a tv movie for the evening and that's enough for them. Some people here really believe that freedom is more valuable than safety, more valuable than the number of deaths or whatever else statistic you might have there. Once these people pass away evenrually, the drive behind this freedom will vanish, and America will turn into Australia, with draconian control of guns, speech and whatever else, but I hope to not be alive by that time.
I think you have a strange view of freedom in Australia.
We'd have to be one of the more free countries around.
Yep, there are some laws that you would see as draconian, but are you offended because they actually impact you, or are they just something you don't like for "reasons"? Many places have laws and conventions that are different, it's about how you live with them.
We have crappy and corrupt politicians.
We have criminals and we have gangs. we are not perfect.
The way we treat our first nations people is frankly shameful.
Unemployed are in a in a hard shake, with benefits being far too low to both live and search for a job without family assistance.
We also have a country where you can walk down most streets without concern for your safety.
Most places in the city you lock your doors but can get away with not setting an alarm.
My current work at home office is on our back deck, and I'm happy to leave my computers out here for a few hours if I need to go out.
Most places outside the cities you don't bother locking your doors.
If you break down on a country road, your biggest fear is that somebody won't turn up to help you, not that they will come and rob you.
Most of us don't know of anybody who has been killed by violence. I know one, she was shot by her boy friend when I was about 8 years old, way before the current gun laws were enacted.
Most of the population understand that we need to work together for the common good, be it responding to natural disasters or putting on a bloody mask to help stop the spread of covid. In a disaster your neighbour will come and check that you are ok.
If I want to have my say about something, as long as I'm not stupid or violent, there are many forum.
I've walked all over the big (lol) cities in the country and never felt threatened or been accosted. This would be different if I were female, but I believe that is a problem world over.
I still believe that the police are there to help and look after me, and have no fear about talking to them. Of course I'm white middle class male and my experience is not that of other groups, however police violence is still rare enough that it creates an outcry.
Overall, the only place I would prefer to live than Australia would be New Zealand, and then I'd have to put up with the cold weather.
See, you're putting so much emphasis on safety: your entire text is about how safe Australia feels. I just don't see what's so valuable in feeling safe on a dark alley if you have zero control over the situation should anything go wrong.
You are not more free in the US than you are in Australia. Unless you cherry pick specific laws (guns for example) as the definition of what freedom is. Freedom to me means having choices. So if you pick (say) healthcare then not having access to healthcare in the US (for example) means you have less freedom in the US than most European countries. If you pick guns then people living in failed states have more freedom than the US because there are no laws stopping them from (say) acquiring nuclear weapons (illegal in the US). My point is that claiming that you are more “free” in country A vs. B is very much a subjective assertion.
> Like it does hearing people from the US on HN talking about guns. It just sounds crazy. I read on HN someone from the US saying Australians wouldn't be under lockdown if only we had guns etc. It just sounds insane, disturbing even reading that. What am I gonna do with a gun?!
As an American, the gun discourse especially on tech forums like HN sounds insane to me too.
Inherent? Like, sure, I'm dimly aware that there are guns somewhere, and that if things get really bad then the police ultimately call in the firearm squad occasionally, but it doesn't feel like something that's inherently necessary.
> It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort.
It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms.
Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. One way to significantly erode individual's/citizen's power, and in turn give power to government, is take away their ability to defend themselves. People worry that as government becomes more powerful and citizens more reliant there is greater likelihood of oppressive government, in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope
> Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many.
For context, can you clarify if the many you're referring to there are some fellow USA citizens?
If so, I'll note that USA is < 5% of global population, and also note a very fresh Pew paper[0] which indicated more than half of that population was keen on stricter gun controls. So 'many' has some caveats around it.
> They provide you with a reasonably effective defense.
Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons?
If it's the former, then we're back to a basic escalation problem, and it's what most other western nation states have avoided falling prey to by, simply, not playing that game.
If you trust your fellow citizens with arms - who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'?
As to:
> ... in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope.
I really can't speak to what it looks like from within the borders of the USA, but from outside, it feels that the USA is well down that slippery slope (of eroded freedoms, and citizenry exploitation) compared to many other democratic nations - so guns in the hands of private citizens don't appear to be a panacea.
Yea I'm referring to fellow US citizens (I am also an Australian citizen, but the Aussie half of my family could care less about guns).
I grew up rural in US and now live in the city. It may as well be two different countries with respect to views on gun ownership, so nationwide polls won't capture any of the variation (also state to state is massive difference).
> Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons?
Any living threat, which could be a much much larger attacker or mob of attackers. Consider the rattlesnake, it's the same thing- a great deterrent. It's peace of mind, a last resort, something that's better to have and not need than to need and not have.
> who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'?
Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to eachothers? Or the barbarism of human history?
> It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms.
And now:
> Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to each others? Or the barbarism of human history?
Those positions aren't precisely orthogonal, but they certainly have some conflicting sentiment behind them.
As to owning a handgun for private use for:
> Any living threat, which could be a much much larger attacker or mob of attackers.
... from a naive perspective (I've never been in that situation, thankfully) it feels like any advantage I may have, via agility, negotiation, ability to out-run, etc, would be negated if everyone involved had a handgun. Certainly if everyone in that scenario is armed, there's no clear advantage to me to be armed.
(I concur that if the other party(ies) were not armed, and I was, then that's advantageous to me. And if they were armed, and I was not, well that's also very bad for me. But that's not the likely scenario in a heavily gun-equipped scenario.)
Anyway, I'm sure you've gone through all this before, with many people smarter / more informed than me.
Precisely why many Americans are convinced gun ownership is an answer to something, despite all the statistical evidence, I'm just not likely to ever understand. Thank you for your patience with my questions.
>Precisely why many Americans are convinced gun ownership is an answer to something, despite all the statistical evidence, I'm just not likely to ever understand. Thank you for your patience with my questions.
It probably doesn't change much but Americans ask the opposite question since ownership is already legal.
We ask what you hope to solve by removing gun ownership.
From the perspective of a gun owner who is in favor of better gun control, the biggest issue with gun legislation in the US is that those proposing restrictions either have no idea what they're talking about or are just catering to those who don't.
The pro gun control crowd is too busy inventing a nonsensical category of guns to ban ("assualt weapons") to even acknowledge that the homicide rate comes from poor people killing eachother with cheap, concealable handguns.
Well, yes, that question would be asked, as the current state, that the majority of US citizens have grown up with, is now considered normal by them.
Reasonable enough, but many people have access to information about how the world outside those borders operates - which is why free healthcare, minimum wage, and other changes, are now being a bit more actively discussed.
Anyway.
> We ask what you hope to solve by removing gun ownership.
What's on offer is a significant (order of magnitude) reduction in the number of violent gun deaths. [0]
No one's trying to sell this to the USA.
OTOH various agencies within the USA are certainly trying to sell the idea that this is a bad thing. The budget differential of the two groups is enormous - consequently it'll almost definitely never happen.
> What's on offer is a significant (order of magnitude) reduction in the number of violent gun deaths.
I think I wasn't totally clear about the point I was trying to make.
Very very very few politicians in the US (I can't name a prominent one but I'm hedging) are for any sort of firearm prohibition that would put us in line with any of the nations we are often compared with. So, given that, the restrictions being proposed will not and should not be expected to bring us in line with those nations. Therefore, the question I'm asking is, given the proposed restrictions, what benefits should we expect.
The point I wanted to make was that the answer to that question, "what benefits should we expect?", is basically none from the current viable proposals and that's why, while I am for more gun control, I am against most existing and proposed gun control measures as I feel they are either completely ineffective or overly burdensome for their effectiveness.
I find the oft-said quote of "If we can save even one life..." type of argument a massive red flag.
Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that - with the constraint of what's currently being proposed, a small set of tentative / cautious controls around gun ownership - that there's not much to gain, so consequently there's not much point trying ... ?
If that's roughly it, then I'd suggest:
a) the cautiousness is a political necessity - and does not preclude the option of pursuing stronger, but similarly sentiment policy changes down the road. First steps, and all that.
b) my understanding is that even very basic, not hugely contentious (almost bipartisan support for) ideas, such as removal of full automatic and ridiculously high calibre from the marketplace, stopping sales at gun shows without background checks, cooling off periods, requiring safe storage gun cabinets, etc - would result in a measurable decrease in deaths (murders, massacres, suicides, accidents).
In any case, it feels like even if (b) wasn't a highly likely, the cost of doing it is relatively low to the potential (but, really almost guaranteed) outcomes.
> I find the oft-said quote of "If we can save even one life..." type of argument a massive red flag.
I don't speak for all non-American citizens, but outside of the country looking in, it feels like (media, social groups, etc) this past year or four we've had an alarming reveal about the attitudes of a surprisingly large portion of American society -- even if something trivially inconvenient is requested of them, that demonstrably will save the lives of other citizens, there's an instinctive and violent push-back.
So, yes indeed - suggesting that some lives could be saved probably isn't a sufficient and satisfactory argument for many people there. But that's a separate problem.
You're saying this like it is an accurate portrayal of the entire modern positive sentiment towards guns. The honest truth of it is a lot of people just really do not like the government.
I am aware and that is what I am pointing out, but he's said this multiple times in a way that insinuates everyone who owns a gun is doing it for racist reasons.
"Some cows are green" is not an insinuation that "all cows are green."
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I guess I should add, if you can't find a way to respond to a comment without violating the guidelines, it's better to downvote, or flag if it's called for, and move on. I've discarded quite a number of half-written responses (and hastily deleted a few freshly-posted comments) on that basis.
I didn't violate the guidelines. It seems clear what their intent was and I added information to the conversation. I could still be wrong. To me, if he was trying to usefully inform other readers he would have commented on why his/her perceived historical connotations are meaningful.
> I could still be wrong. To me, if he was trying to usefully inform other readers he would have commented on why his/her perceived historical connotations are meaningful.
Aha. See, if you had phrased that as a question, there could be room for curious conversation. Instead, you took the least generous interpretation and ran with that.
There's far less generous interpretations available. I could have transparently accused him of race baiting.
If I did something similar, like ran around pointing out that children can actually consent do actually have a working theory of the world in a thread about CP you'd probably question whether or not I have a load of CP on my computer. There is something as too much benefit of the doubt.
> Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to eachothers? Or the barbarism of human history?
We live in a tiny window of prosperity and safety. WWII was only 76 years ago. Syria is a short plane ride away. Afghanistan is a contemporary product of our own hubris.
Yet people still assume, for reasons that I genuinely cannot fathom, that this tiny window of privilege that we're lucky enough to inhabit will last indefinitely, and never backslide.
" They provide you with a reasonably effective defense"
No, they don't at all. Just the opposite actually.
I get the 'Guns to defend against Tyranny' argument, that's kind of reasonable.
But as 'personal defence' they don't work nearly as well as having strong gun regulations which keep guns out of the hands of the morons. It's much safer walking down the street in Canada where you can't legally carry a gun, because there are just so few guns the baddies have a harder time getting them, and use them much less.
I do think we ought to be more concerned about authoritarian creep ... but guns are probably not the best solution to that either, as if it gets to that level it's very, very bad. Legislative, civic reform, voting, literacy etc. would be more helpful there.
But your premise rests on the trust that criminals won’t obtain guns illegally if more restrictions are created. On mobile, so don’t have the numbers, but I recall a large amount of gun crime is done by illegally obtained firearms.
It doesn't rest on the premise that bad guys won't obtain guns illegally ... because they for sure will and that's the case everywhere.
Supply and Demand applies to the Black Market as much as it does to legal markets.
Again Japan is a great example: there are pretty much no guns allowed, anywhere, and guess what? There is almost zero gun crime.
There's no doubt that anyone with basic resources and need could obtain a gun if they really put their minds to it, but that's part of Supply and Demand, it's just not worth the extended effort in most cases. But if you have them lying around, with easy access, and your whole crew has them, and your rival gang is also easily and well armed, well, then you have a problem.
The argument that guns are good for personal defence just does not add up, it's just irrational at face value that everyone running around with guns (even legal ones) creates safer conditions.
The only place they would be useful is in highly dangerous situations, ironically made dangerous at least in part because historically lax gun regulations. If I lived in Mexico, I may very well own a gun, but in Maine, it would be basically pointless for the purposes of 'self defence' there.
Switzerland has high gun ownership, but they do not really have pistols and they do not carry them for self defence.
Mexico has strict gun laws, but they are not enforced, so the laws don't have much of an effect.
USA -> Can/Aus -> UK/Europe -> Japan form a fairly straight forward examples of ever stricter gun control leading to considerably less gun crime.
Note that some of those places have elevated levels of physical assaults, and knife attacks, but that leads to considerably fewer injuries and fatalities.
The 'stand against tyranny' argument notwithstanding, I think there's some legitimacy there, but that's another can of worms.
> Again Japan is a great example: there are pretty much no guns allowed, anywhere, and guess what? There is almost zero gun crime.
I think the relevant counterfactual example you're looking for here is, "If Japan had much more liberal gun laws, would murder rates go up?" I don't think anyone's specifically concerned about gun murders.
"I don't think anyone's specifically concerned about gun murders. " That's because they don't exist. They are made impossible because of the restraints.
Consider that Japan has so effectively kept gun violence out, that we consider their 'no gun deaths' an artifact of their culture.
Reference my comment on this thread for data on Japan, France, US, Canada.
If you add in Korea, which is similar to Japan, you see that guns are not completely restricted but very rare - and guess what - homicide by guns, though still rare - does materially exist above the levels of Japan.
So yes, if you allowed 'some guns' in Japan, there would be some gun crime.
The homocide rate in Japan is about 1/2 that of Norway, which seems about right, it's not like they don't murder people there.
My bet if that gun laws in Japan were the same as Norway, you'd see 1) that more of the homicides would be by guns and 2) the homocide rate would creep up a bit because it's just so easy to reach for a gun.
Of course, if guns were as widespread in Japan as they are in the US there would be much more homicide, but still considerably less than in the US.
Put another way: while culture is obviously an important factor - that culture is driven by gun availability.
And other things as well of course: if everyone has healthcare/welfare, well, that's going to start to limit the very negative situations people get into on the margins. I'm not making an ideological point here, rather than trying to illustrate systematic effects.
>Put another way: while culture is obviously an important factor - that culture is driven by gun availability.
I think that's incorrect. You really need to do experiments to get at this sort of causal story, though econometricians think they can sneak their way around said experiments. It's definitely a feedback loop and the availability of guns seems like a very, very small part of what goes into a "culture".
Anyway, what I really came here to say is I think you misinterpreted my comment: I didn't mean japanese people don't really care about gun murders, I meant all of us shouldn't really care about gun murders. From a public policy perspective, the thing we care about is just plain old murders--with what tools people decide to commit them is irrelevant. The relevant counterfactual you need to consider is, "If Japan had more liberal gun laws, would the murder rate go up?" if the claim you're interested in is "Do gun laws influence the murder rate?", NOT "If Japan had more liberal gun laws, would the gun murder rate go up?". It seems likely that the gun murder rate would go up to me, but who cares? What if the overall murder rate went down? What we really care about is the # of people murdered.
Canada is 80% white (so considerably more homogeneous than the U.S.), enjoys somewhat lower levels of inequality, and doesn't have a long, porous border with a developing nation that has endemic corruption, violence, and organized crime. It's really different.
I imagine you have some proof or statistics that it's Mexicans doing most of the gun killing/dying in the US? Or am i misunderstanding what you're insinuating?
As another gun owner its not necessarily people that my gun can defend me and my family from. I grew up living out side of town out in the country. I have in my yard seen bear, cougar, coyotes and while hiking/camping/fishing also come across wolves and various snakes. Around age 12 I started carrying a .22 caliber pistol loaded with snake shot when fishing in case of rattle snake.
> It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens
It is other way around. People who want gun bans do not trust the fellow citizens and hence want to restrict their freedom of owning firearms. Gun lovers on other hand are some of the nicest people around, we want everyone women, lgbtq, blacks, whites, asians and everyone to own firearms and we trust them to be responsible for it.
Pride part :
1. I come from a long line of fighters. Weapons are part of our lifestyle and no government or law can stop my family from being armed. (Though we will always obey law).
2. Guns are a symbol of individual freedom. There is an inherent responsibility to protect one and their private property and community. I will not hesitate to use violence to fight a tyranny.
Australia is practically under house arrest today and we see articles like :
A) most abortions aren't in response to rape. [0]
B) most rapes aren't surprise attacks in a darkened alley or parking garage; it's by an acquaintance or intimate partner of the victim. [1]
Have you ever tried to pull a gun on someone attacking you? I think most people find it easier to fantasize these 'armed defense' reactions then to actually experience one.
The CDC[0] links to a report[1] mentioning estimates of anywhere from 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. I’m not necessarily agreeing with the previous comment, just adding some context.
The authors (one being the notable Alan I. Leshner, MS, PhD) clearly states in the report that those numbers are unreliable:
>> The lack of standardization across databases limits their comparability (NRC, 2005). The absence of clearly defined concepts complicates
data collection and interpretation. For example, definitions of “selfdefense” and “deterrence” are ambiguous (NRC, 2005; Weiner et al.,
2007). There is no standardized method for data collection or collation,
which prevents researchers from harnessing the potential power of data
across multiple datasets
The general idea is to first avoid such situations, and then to have your hand on your gun's grip, or pull it before it's too late. You know, the whole CONSTANT VIGILANCE! thing.
If you're walking around in Condition White all the time you're unlikely to succeed. But that doesn't describe many if not most US concealed carriers.
The fact that you cast this as "fantasy" tells us it's not something you've ever seriously considered.
LOL, yes, if we were only all just like Joe Zamudio in 2011:
>> “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ “
>> But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out.
What evidence do you have for suggesting that a citizenry with guns serves to protect other freedoms? The US generally isn't among the top countries on the various international freedom indexes[1] despite our prevalence of guns. We are usually behind Canada, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries depending on the specific criteria being evaluated.
Interesting. Kids in many countries throughout the middle east and northern Africa have essentially unrestricted access to firearms, including shit you can't buy in most US states, but your "Draw a Muhammad" litmus test wouldn't fly. What does this indicate?
Let's burn the American flag instead. How's that gonna go in rural counties of the US? Will it be safe, or will the response be armed?
The litmus test is to measure freedom and not effectiveness of guns on freedom.
It is pretty hard to organize 'Draw A Muhammad' workshop in non-muslim countries like Canada, UK or India. That tells you how less free those countries are.
Secondly, freedom is used (always) in the context of Government. In India, Canada or UK it is not the fellow muslim you have to worry about but the government jailing you. In the absence of a robust violent respons from society government will take away your freedoms one by one to simplify their own life at your expense.
> Let's burn the American flag instead.
Please do. It is an important freedom Americans have and constitutional granted free speech right. American flag is burned, insulted on regular basis in USA. Just like flag insulting national anthem is another form of protest in USA. I have not heard of anyone being punished or killed in USA for burning American flag. Most certainly the government can't punish you for the same.
> It is pretty hard to organize 'Draw A Muhammad' workshop in non-muslim countries like Canada, UK or India. That tells you how less free those countries are.
Sorry, bub. I live in Canada, and you're extremely misinformed about the law here. It would not be hard to organize a "draw a Muhammad" event here. If Megan Murphy speaking at the Vancouver Public Library is any indication, you could even do it on government property, replete with security to keep you and the protesters away from eachother.
Or, change my mind. Show me the legal precedent where Canada jailed somebody for drawing Muhammad. I'm curious about the UK, India and Australia, too. But I'm calling bullshit on your claim about Canada.
The closest I've seen was a dude got fined for distributing hate speech targeting an individual. He couldn't afford to pay the fine, and that was the end of that.
You're saying that I should expect to be assaulted and arrested in response to an exercise of free speech. That's a fail.
If I persist, or defend myself, as people attempt to stop me, are you positive that I wouldn't get shot by some trigger-happy kid like Kyle Rittenhouse?
That is a poor test in my opinion. I do not value symbolic personal liberties like bible burning or drawing Muhammad more than economic or press freedom which have a much larger cascading effect on our lives. And the fact that the US is lacking in those two latter categories compared to many of our peer nations calls into question whether our freedom regarding guns or speech actually protects our other freedoms.
There are 2 indexes each for economic and press freedom. Our rankings on the economic freedom lists are 5th and 20th. On the press freedom ranks we are 44th, and 37th.
You seem to be looking at the the rank order alone, which just means there are a lot of closely bunched countries near the US on the indices.
If you look at the heat maps and the actual indices themselves, along with the countries with comparable numbers, you’ll see that those lists precisely support my claim.
You are simply factually wrong in your description of this data. 3 of the 4 indexes I listed provide defined tiers. The US is in the top tier on only 1 of the 3 lists. On that one list there are 60 counties in the top tier. On the other two lists we are in the 2nd tier defined as "satisfactory situation" and "mostly free". The organizations behind the lists clearly think there is room for improvement. This data does not corroborate your point.
Here is what I said: “The US is not lacking in either press or economic freedom compared to ‘peer’ nations.”
Whether or not there are countries who have better ratings, any honest reading of the list sees that the US ratings are similar to peers.
When you consider how large and diverse the US is compared to most countries on the list, the ranking becomes more impressive.
The first list puts the US above all of Europe except Switzerland, and above all of Scandinavia, and Canada and Australia.
The second list puts the US above Sweden, Germany, and Japan for example.
The third, doesn’t have ranks, but places US in the ‘satisfactory’ category along with most of Europe, Canada, and Australia.
The fourth, is the only one in which the US does a little worse on their points scale, however *it is back in the top tier described as ‘free’ alongside all its peers, and above the UK, France and Japan in the ranking.
It’s just bullshit to claim these lists indicate that the US is lacking compared to peers.
I started writing out a longer response to you, but then realized it isn't worth it. If you aren't going to acknowledge that we maybe have room for improvement when we are internationally ranked in the 30s and 40s in press freedom then I don't see much value in continuing the conversation on how our freedom might be lacking.
> If you aren't going to acknowledge that we maybe have room for improvement
This is a completely dishonest representation of what I have said.
Here it is again:
> The US is not lacking in either press or economic freedom compared to ‘peer’ nations. Whether or not there are countries who have better ratings, any honest reading of the list sees that the US ratings are similar to peers.
Nowhere did I say there wasn’t room for improvement or even claim the US was at the top.
If you’re going to lie about both what I said, and what the links show, what do you think we can accomplish?
These lists seem to show that the US is pretty much on par with the rest of the western world. I'm not sure how you could look at these and say that the US is behind it's peers very much, especially on the economic freedom measures. Only the second press freedom list seems to have the US at the low end compared to other western countries, but it's still above the UK, South Korea and a few others.
>We are usually behind Canada, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries depending on the specific criteria being evaluated.
The countries we are behind on all 4 lists and therefore unanimously behind:
- New Zealand
- Switzerland
The countries we are behind on 3 of the 4 lists and therefore countries we are "usually behind":
- Canada
- Australia
- Ireland
- Denmark
- Finland
- Netherlands
The countries we are behind on 2 of the 4 lists and therefore countries we are on par with:
- Germany
- Norway
- Sweden
- Iceland
- Belgium
- Austria
- Portugal
- Czech Republic
- Lithuania
- Slovenia
- Andorra
- Liechtenstein
- Luxembourg
- Estonia
- Cyprus
- Jamaica
- Costa Rica
So that is a yes on "Canada, New Zealand... and a few other European countries". I don't know why you and the other poster are pretending that naming countries that we are ranked higher than disproves this statement. The only thing that isn't backed up by those rankings is that I said "the Scandinavian countries" when it is only Denmark and Finland ahead of us while we are on par with Norway, Sweden, and Iceland.
> And the fact that the US is lacking in those two latter categories compared to many of our peer nations
Which is still bullshit.
As I said before, whether or not there are countries who have better ratings, any honest reading of the list sees that the US ratings are similar to peers.
Is your enter point through these several posts that my definition of "peer" is too broad? It should have been obvious in context that I was referring to something along the lines of "western democracies" since I listed countries before ever using the word "peer". It honestly seems like you are arguing just for the sake of argument at this point.
> It should have been obvious in context that I was referring to something along the lines of "western democracies" since I listed countries before ever using the word "peer".
I said "compared to many of our peer nations". You are acting as if I said "compared to all our peer nations". Pointing out countries we are ahead does nothing to disprove that there are 8 countries in which we are "usually behind".
But either way, I give up. This isn't worth spending any more time on. Congrats, you win!
> I said "compared to many of our peer nations". You are acting as if I said "compared to all our peer nations"
This is where the misunderstanding arises. You are actually incorrect. I’m not acting as if you said compared to all of our peer nations. I clearly and repeatedly accepted that we are behind some of our peer nations.
You on the other hand, are using the fact that we are not literally at the top of the list, to argue that we are behind our peers in a general sense.
If you weren’t you’d simply say “we aren’t at the top of the list - there are 8 countries ahead of us”, instead of the false, and more generic sounding “compared to many of our peers”.
Wow, it is infuriating that people are still getting harassed for that. However, the fact that it is constitutionally protected basically precludes any of those charges from being pursued. Apparently, sometimes flag burners are harassed with other petty crimes like theft/littering.
How often do you make use of your freedom to make meaningless antagonistic gestures to Muslims or Christians? Would you rank it as more or less important than the freedom to go for a run in public without being shot or harassed (which is not really afforded to Black Americans [0])?
You clearly didn't read the collected stories in that article. The NYTimes requested letters from Black people on their experiences running after a Black man, Ahmaud Arbery, was murdered awhile running and a big part of the national narrative consisted of false allegations that he had just burgled some place.
It seems a lot of Black people are afraid to run because they know there's a real risk that they'll be shot by white people who will assume they've committed a crime. They're afraid people will immediately assume they're scofflaws, as you joked (?), and hurt or harass them.
So you may have seen black people running, but that may be because you live in a more progressive neighborhood with BLM signs that has made Black runners feel less like they'd be murdered in your neighborhood than in other neighborhoods (as one person explained in that article).
If we're measuring freedom, the right to exist in public without a reasonable expectation of violence and harassment seems important.
Okay, but you said "Blacks are not afforded the freedom to run," not that some people (how many?) have apprehensions or misgivings about doing so (not a lack of freedom). Apartheid in South Africa was a different thing from "some people are afraid, possibly irrationally so".
Lastly, this has nothing to do with gun ownership? You can find people expressing exactly the same sentiments all over western Europe.
>...the freedom to go for a run in public without being shot or harassed (which is not really afforded to Black Americans)".
I could quibble about that claim, or point that I've read countless tweets and anecdotes from Black people describing that they have to carefully plan their routes and wear shirts from ivy league schools because they've been assaulted or harassed by white people in the past and they just want to make whites feel safe, or look back to my upbringing in Grosse Pointe, a wealthy suburb just east of Detroit that was hardcore redlined [0] where I saw Black people routinely harassed for existing in public. But the core of this is that Black people in American don't have the freedoms white people do. Black people don't get personhood here, unlike people who look like me [1].
And as a homicide researcher, I assure you, gun ownership is extremely relevant to the denial of freedom to Black Americans.
Your argument sounds compelling on a sentimental level. Unfortunately, as soon as one digs down into the numbers and does any sort of statistical analysis -- I guess something I'd expect a homicide researcher (what is that anyway? [0]) to do -- the claim falls apart. Controlling for any correlated factors -- criminality, age, income -- whites and blacks are about even in many (but not all) respects [1]
It's true that in some cases, there are disparities that seem to suggest a very small amount of racial bias. Summing up that situation by saying that as blacks are not free is about as unproductive and untrustworthy as using Jamelle Bouie as a source for anything.
[0] seriously, what is that? A description of your hobby of reading newspaper articles and downloading public datasets?
My title is "data scientist", and my main job function has been researching homicide and developing policies that reduce the homicide rate/increase the homicide clearance rate. I was embedded in the homicide unit of the Bureau of Detectives my local (Chicago) police department for a year and a half, and over that time, I saw footage of hundreds and hundreds of homicides, and one remarkable thing about them (besides how horrible they are) is how racially segregated the victimization is.
Over 80% of people shot or killed in the city I've lived in for over a decade are Black, and over 80% of shootings or homicides occur in neighborhoods where 80+% of residents are Black. These observables forced me to ask "Why are Black people so disproportionately victimized by violent crime?" and "Why is housing so intensely segregated?". Looking into segregation, I found this problem isn't unique to Chicago, rather it's a feature of every US city with a significant Black population [0], so the cause likely wasn't purely local in nature.
Growing up in the Detroit suburb I mentioned previously, I was very familiar with "redlining", as the the boundary line separating Detroit and Grosse Pointe was also the boundary line separating white and Black residents as that Wikipedia image clearly shows. I am somewhat embarrassed that I had to watch hundreds of people be murdered before I thought to ask "why are we still so racially segregated, over 50 years after LBJ's administration signed so many civil rights bills into law?" but asking that question lead me to investigate, and unsurprisingly, a nation-wide effect was the consequence of a nation-wide federal policy. The Federal Housing Administration's explicitly racist mortgage underwriting guidelines [1] explicitly incentivized racially segregating Black Americans out of areas with desirable land, low pollution, good schools, or good services. Here are some excerpts from this Federal policy that provided a massive investment vehicle nearly exclusively to white Americans:
* "Natural or artificially established barriers will prove effective in protecting a neighborhood and the locations within it from adverse influences. Usually the protection from adverse influences afforded by these means includes prevention of the infiltration of business and industrial uses, lower class occupancy, and inharmonious racial groups." (Section 935: "Natural Physical Protection"),
* "Areas surrounding a location are investigated to determine whether incompatible
racial and social groups are present, for the purpose of making a prediction regarding the probability of the location being invaded by such groups. If a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes. A change in social or racial occupancy generally contributes to instability and a decline in values." (Section 937: "Quality of Neighboring Development"),
* "However, if the children of people living in such an area are compelled to attend school where the majority or a considerable number of the pupils represent a far lower level of society or an incompatible racial element, the neighborhood under consideration will prove far less stable and desirable than if this condition did not exist." (section 951: "Quality and Accessibility of Schools"),
* "Satisfaction, contentment, and comfort result from association with persons of similar social attributes. Families enjoy social relationships with other families
whose education, abilities, mode of living, and racial characteristics are similar to their own." (Section 973: "Social Attractiveness"),
* "The infiltration of inharmonious racial groups will produce the same effects
as those which follow the introduction of incongruous land uses, when the latter tend to lower the level of land values and lessen the desirability of residential areas." (Section 1360, "Estimation of Remaining Physical and Economic Life of Buildings",
* "Racial Occupancy Desiqnation. This will be a letter indicating predominating racial characteristics, as follows: W-White M-Mixed F-Foreign N-Negro" (Section 1850)
* etc.
The FHA is a federal agency of the US government, which extends its reach across the US. The FHA's underwriting manual provided explicitly racist rules for determining whether the FHA would insure mortgages in an area, and if the FHA wouldn't insure mortgages in an area, that drastically reduced the number of banks that would issue mortgages in an area, which reduces the supply of buyers, which reduces land value. As a consequence, these policies incentivized real estate agents, banks, and white residents to push Black people out of desirable areas and into ghettos or areas far from economic opportunity. While these policies were outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, many millions of white Americans were able to buy real estate thanks to this program thereby enabling those white Americans to generate generational wealth on those assets, while Black Americans were denied access to this class investment, or could only access it through predatory means (eg "contract buying", where the buyer gains no equity until the very last payment is made, so failure to pay the penultimate payment could result in the resident being evicted with nothing). Even with redlining being explicitly illegal, banks still do it [2].
Over the past hundred years in the US, real estate has been an incredibly well performing investment, and access to this investment class many decades ago has allowed white families to profit from (and pass down) the compounding returns, while Black families were locked out of this. The resulting racial wealth gap [3] is staggering, with the median white family net wealth being around $188k, while the median Black family's net wealth is around $24k. As a result, segregation is maintained by the massive population of white Americans who are able to afford rents or mortgages in areas with high quality services, while the population of Black Americans able to afford the same rents or mortgages is disproportionately smaller.
As a result of this intense, systemic racial bias (which is undeniably obvious, just look at these maps [0]!), average Black Americans enjoy nowhere near the freedom that average white Americans do. Last year, there were over 4000 shootings and 769 homicides in Chicago, and the overwhelming majority of them occurred in the neighborhoods where the majority of Chicago's ~780,000 Black residents live. In the Detroit suburb I grew up in, I could (and regularly did) go for walks between midnight and 3am, never once thinking "oh, this isn't safe". None of my classmates were ever murdered or shot. Few if any of my classmates had to work a job to help their family get by, and even most of the mediocre students in my grade went to college. The conditions for Black people my age who just lived 4 blocks north of me, just across the Detroit border, lived under very different conditions.
If you think this is a "very small amount of racial bias", I assume you've just never taken the time to think about this issue. When you look a maps of racial segregation in the US [0], [systemic racial segregation via federal housing policy] is the only explanation that stands up to scrutiny. If you're actually interested in the truth on this issue, you should read "The Color of Law" [4]. If you aren't interested in the truth, keep doing what you're doing.
Citing several small countries with many significant differences from the U.S. isn’t solid logic. All of those countries are much smaller, much less diverse, and enjoy the geopolitical shelter of the U.S.
Are you suggesting that a country needs to take away press freedom as its population increases or it becomes more diverse? Otherwise I don't see your point. I can concede that economic freedom might become more complex for larger countries, but why shouldn't press freedom scale? We rank in the 30s and 40s on those press freedom indexes. If you want to eliminate smaller countries, why can't we keep up with a country like Germany who is ahead of us on both lists?
I don't think the suggestion is that a country "needs" to take away freedoms as it grows larger or more diverse. It's just that a larger and more diverse country is simply more likely to have to grapple with tensions between different groups of people. This may lead to some freedoms being challenged.
> In my experience USA lot less corrupt than most other countries. Lobbying overall is a net good thing for a democratic society.
You rightly mention lobbying and corruption together. But somehow you miss that they are on the same continuum. From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion.
The situation around guns itself is a clear example: as I understand it, a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights (banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals) but politicians are only expanding gun rights (open carry etc).
If democracy would work as intended then "common sense" limitations would have been introduced long ago.
Note that I am not talking about corruption in the criminal sense: US politics and supreme court have fully legalized and embraced it, conflating it with lobbying.
With regard to your gun control points, there is a bit of nuance you missed that people (like me, if I wasn’t trying to help you steelman your argument) will criticize.
Specifically, there are already heavy restrictions on automatic weapons, which are basically never used in criminal acts. Every automatically gun in the US has to be registered with the federal government for $200 and a lot of paperwork. In effect it means if you’re wealthy you can own automatic guns, which is a violation of the 2nd in a lot of people’s opinion.
What I think you meant when you said automatic is “assault “, which is what most of the gun debate is currently center on, so called “assault rifles”. The issue is that the term is not clearly defined, and under most proposed bans would include many rifles which were traditionally considered hunting tools. Even that is a bit of moot point, because the 2nd was not written with hunting in mind.
Another hot point recently is “ghost guns”, which like “assault rifle”, sounds scary enough on the evening news to grab eyeballs. “Ghost guns” are being used to justify government overreach by banning the sharing of gun plans for DIY construction. The issue is that again, almost no DIY guns are used in crimes. What are used are stolen handguns that have had the serial number scratched off. The stolen guns are grouped in with DIY guns as “ghost guns”.
Automatic weapons were only ever rich people toys. Unless you've got a squad of buddies and one of them is laying down covering fire they're not very useful and they convert money into noise real fast.
"Assault rifle" has a very specific meaning: an intermediate-caliber, magazine-fed military rifle capable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire. That common meaning has been more or less fixed since WWII when it was adopted from the German word Sturmgewehr.
"Assault weapon" is a legal term that is defined by law (e.g., California's assault weapons ban or the failed federal Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 that you cited). "Assault weapon" includes not only semi-automatic rifles, but also shotguns and pistols that have certain characteristics. The definitions are long and complicated because they attempt to ban only weapons having the visual and ergonomic features of military weapons, while ignoring weapons of similar caliber that do not have those features.
Many people in the US cannot afford that. It’s an arbitrary 33% increase on an already expensive purchase. That’s a pretty strong disincentive for a lot of people. Not to mention people who would prefer to engage with the federal government as little as possible, for a wide variety of reasons.
As for the definition, if you read the definitions of the prohibited components, they are broad enough to ban essentially all rifles, which is likely the goal. For instance, “pistol grip” seems like a well defined thing at a glance, but it is later defined as “ 45) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock or Thordsen-type grip or stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.”
That last clause especially is extremely broad. Define functioning as a grip. Is that any piece that enables holding the rifle?
One of the many things you're ignoring is that $200 was originally over $4,000 in today's dollars. And had quite the chilling effect, even if at the last minute handguns were removed from the remit of the NFA of 1934, that's why it has the bizarre "Any Other Weapon" category, it was intended to effectively ban for almost all citizens in the middle of the Great Depression all concealable weapons, as well as full auto.
And you don't get to decide if $200 today plus a very intrusive application process infringes on our rights.
>> As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.
>> United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act's registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Try putting a pre-emptive background check, $200 fee, and 10-12 month waiting period for approval on any other constitutional right, whether that right be explicitly stated, or implicitly "discovered".
Just to clarify, fully automatic rifles ("machine guns") in the U.S. cost tens of thousands of dollars (and have, thanks to gun control legislation, been an absolutely amazing investment). For instance, an M-16 would cost you maybe $30-35k plus the regulatory hoops.
The situation around guns itself is a clear example: as I understand it, a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights (banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals) but politicians are only expanding gun rights (open carry etc).
Strange, isn't it, how polling organizations don't quite seem to capture what the people actually want and vote for.
Actually, your list of "banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals" is already in place, although the first is limited to a few hundred thousand in civilian hands. Two last time I checked had been used in crimes, the first incident a murder by a policeman.
> From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion.
People with money and influence will always try to impact law. In EU it happens through actual bribes which is far worse. (Pretty much like India). In USA an immigrant like me can join hands with 10K immigrants and find enough support in congress openly by hiring lobbiest to advocate for the cause I care about. That is how democracy should work.
It is easy to see lobbying as bad by taking examples you don't like but in reality it is a great example of how people can convince their representatives to pass right kind of laws, legally and with enough regulation. In most countries this happens to secret middleman and nights in shady hotels.
> a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights
It is not clear if that is the case. Of course majority of people is irrelevant because this is not a mob rule. That is why we don't allow crowd in SF determine what people in Montana want. It is all fair game.
Secondly, people like me who care about guns care about it lot more to actually form lobbies. On other hand folks who dislike guns only talk about it but will not lobby or donate for the anti-gun causes.
I recommend this excellent video about why NRA despite with a shoe string budget is so much more influenced than many other lobbying groups.
Please note that automatic weapons are already banned from civilian possession.
Regarding psychiatric patients and criminals, this has an exact opposite effect that you want. People are far more scared of seeking psychiatric help when they know that they’re going to lose their rights. This is an open secret in gun community to never mention to a doctor that you have guns, and this is an indirect message to not seek psychiatric help unless you wanna lose your guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...
As someone who both owns guns, has a concealed carry permit, and has been in therapy and takes anti-depressants, the pervasive fear about getting red flagged and having your firearms taken away seems like overblown fearmongering.
Can someone point me towards some statistics or reports of such occurrences?
I don’t understand what are you trying to challenge here? My claim that people think that, or their belief that this does not happen?
I don’t know how can I prove that people think that. You just need to be in the gun community and talk to people who would never put it in writing. My own gun trainer told us the story of a man going to the doctor for getting his hand hurt while doing repairs at home, the doctor chatted with him and he mentioned that he lost his job recently that’s why he had all this free time to do his work, the doctor reported this and his guns were taken away. (Please note no more details were provided than the story).
The point is that mental health is a very tricky game, there is an immediate loss of trust due to the fundamental nature of what it is. I personally don’t think you should own guns if you’re taking antidepressants.
> I don’t understand what are you trying to challenge here? My claim that people think that, or their belief that this does not happen?
> I don’t know how can I prove that people think that. You just need to be in the gun community and talk to people who would never put it in writing.
I wasn't trying to challenge anything, just presenting my own anecdata that I personally have not run into gun ownership issues even with my own mental health trials. Nor has my brother, who like another commenter got put into a 72-hour involuntary hold and continues to own and purchase firearms without issue. Contrast this against your own, opposing anecdata from your trainer.
I'm well familiar with the belief and that people live with such fear, I've heard it plenty at ranges, gun stores, sporting goods stores, from colleagues and in bars. Recently, my girlfriend quit her job and her father was near frantic in his insistence that she not cite 'stress' in her resignation letter as that alone would supposedly start some rube goldberg slippery slope mechanism to her losing her right to own guns. Again, to me this feels like such an overblown fear of the evil eye of big government boogeyman and near incredible, which is why I was asking for stats or reports to try to put some numbers to the stories. I certainly won't discount that guns are, on occasion, taken away from their rightful owners without proper due process; but are there any DOJ, FBI reports, etc?
> just presenting my own anecdata that I personally have not run into gun ownership issues even with my own mental health trials. Nor has my brother, who like another commenter got put into a 72-hour involuntary hold and continues to own and purchase firearms without issue.
Ok, so your point is, that making laws which stigmatize mental health (which is what it is) have no impact on people seeking out mental health counseling?
No, my point is that I haven't seen, and am asking for, data to back up the belief that the pursuit of mental health is causing mass seizures of people's belongings.
If anything, my point is that maybe this pervasive (and possibly unfounded, which is why I'm wondering if there is any actual hard data) fear of having guns stolen is impacting people's mental health by disincentivizing them from seeking the help they need.
> No, my point is that I haven't seen, and am asking for, data to back up the belief that the pursuit of mental health is causing mass seizures of people's belongings.
Ah, but that was not my claim. My claim is, association of mental health and guns will cause (and is causing) people to avoid seeking mental health.
I don't know how can I be any more clear, but you can read my past comments again.
No stats, but I have been placed under a 72-hour involuntary hold and even I could still purchase guns in my state.
Being committed by judicial order for having a mental illness/developmentally disabled, or being found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial are the three disqualifiers for gun ownership in my state. It is likely different in each state, so YMMV.
you have got it almost completely backwards. :P
Automatic weapons are for all intents and purposes banned.
Politicians are constantly passing new gun control. It is far easier to pass new gun control laws than it is to remove them. "Common Sense Gun Control Laws" is a term coined by the Democrats that is used to refer to any gun control legislation that they are currently trying to pass. If they pass the law than the next thing they want becomes "Common Sense"
Yes, personally I would much rather put my trust in my neighboring citizens than the government. I trust myself and other citizens to stand up for our rights more than I trust the government to protect them. So, I'd rather citizens be armed than the government. IIRC Switzerland has an interesting citizen militia/gun ownership situation as well.
Switzerlands guns culture and history is very different. Quite the opposite actually. Civilians were armed, required to own guns for a long time, so local lords and later governments could send them to conflicts quicker.
The argument that you need guns for personal defense, against the government or as part of self-reliance is extremely rare. Also legally there are not many cases where their use would be considered justified self-defense by a court.
There has been some "americanization" in recent years with people copying NRA arguments but not a prevalent mindset anywhere in the country.
The reasons why there are some many guns around are simply because people often take (or had to in the past) the military service riffle home and because shooting is a fairly popular sport. Not because of a perceived need of needing it for defending oneself or family.
Sadly, our neighborhood thinks everyone is a potential criminal and hangs signs around saying "I don't call 911" with a picture of a gun. This is not inviting to other neighbors, and not a way to build trust with one another.
I grew up in an area where people have these signs and bumper stickers, and never had a problem socializing. I saw no evidence that people couldn't trust their neighbors or community. I've seen these in rural and urban places as well, and still haven't seen any issue like what you're suggesting. What's the problem supposed to be?
How do those signs introduce trust by advertising violence? Furthermore, I do not want my children playing with other families who have guns inside the household. I don't see it as safe.
Why hang a sign that insinuates "I may shoot you", unless that person really means it?
Because the neighbors know that violence will only be directed against those causing harm in the neighborhood, restoring peace should criminal activity cross a line, and deterring criminal activity by assuring perpetrators will not benefit from their vile actions.
I know other families who have guns are willing & able to protect my children. They've thought about such situations, and have means to protect the innocent.
The signs are clearly intended for would-be criminals, that is the well understood meaning of a phrase like "we don't call 911" or "this house protected by Smith and Wesson". Nobody who lives next to such a house thinks these signs describe them or are meant for them at all, because they aren't criminals. The "I may shoot you" interpretation never occurs to them, because they don't think "I may rob this house" either.
You make a fundamental mistake by thinking that the sign has any effect on how much I trust my neighbors. Unless it's a NAMBLA flag, I am not going to let a bumper sticker or slogan override my personal experience of a person. Most people are like this.
The problem is not specifically criminals, but how people react to others under stress, and how they view guns in their lives. Do they turn to guns quickly, or do they find peaceful solutions? The posted signs are one way to judge, and I really do hope most people are peaceful, even though they portray violence. My family's safety could depend on their true nature.
An example of someone's recent true nature:
>> A Washington man was arrested after officials said he shot and killed a neighbor for revving his engine too loudly.
Those familiar with guns know their place, and are (on the whole) actually much less likely to harm others without cause - precisely because they are familiar with the likely harm.
One cherry-picked anecdote is insufficient. A million or so crimes, murders included, are deterred/stopped every year - most without firing a shot.
> A million or so crimes, murders included, are deterred/stopped every year - most without firing a shot.
The data don't really suggest that this is the case. Compared to other western countries, America has the same rate of crime. The difference is, of course, that criminal activity is more likely to involve firearms and thus death.
>Unless it's a NAMBLA flag, I am not going to let a bumper sticker or slogan override my personal experience of a person. Most people are like this.
If you have lots of personal experiences with a person, that's great. But many people don't have real relationships with their neighbors. Bumper stickers and slogans absolutely will impact such relations, they make first impressions. I certainly wouldn't trust almost-strangers with tons of flat-earth stuff to tutor my kids, would you?
In my experience, conservative and moderate-leaning people do not require a priori confirmation of ideological alignment with a person before they try to know them. Especially if they live next door. In conservative places, where you would expect to find more armed households, you would also see more neighborly relationship in my experience.
The derangement of liberals knows no end, I see. Just nakedly projecting his own internal reality without a hint of self-awareness.
Being brown myself, I promise you that your cherished pet minorities are doing fine in the suburbs. None of us are looking to urban whites as a savior, and you don't need to involve us in your feud with rural whites. Many of the people who I know that are gun owners are black -- they're very neighborly as well!
I'm glad your experiences have been good. But that doesn't make it true for the country as a whole. Here's a quote by Former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich:
"It's more dangerous to be black in America[...] It's both more dangerous because of crime, which is the Chicago story. But it is more dangerous in that you're substantially more likely to end up in a situation where police don't respect you where you could easily get killed. I think sometimes for whites it's difficult to appreciate how real that is."
That's completely unrelated to whether your rural neighbors will be friendly, though. In fact, both things he mentions - crime and police - are going to be primarily experienced in urban, democratic areas by African Americans.
Respectfully, you may think you're developing a coherent argument, but you are jumping around between several unrelated points.
Does racism exist? Of course. It probably is even higher among rural and suburban individuals, on some kind of self-reported metric.
Does it have an appreciable, significantly negative impact on the lives of most non-white people in 2021? The evidence is pretty dubious on this point IMO, but of course it depends on your definition of impactful.
What argument? I was literally just asking a question. If you thought I was making some statement about gun violence, I suggest that you calm down and stop reading too much into random comments on the internet.
Sure, I guess if someone is asking a loaded (and flippant IMO) question, they can be said to be "literally just asking a question." But I'm not sure how seriously to take "I'm not making a comment about gun violence" several comments deep into a thread about gun violence.
In this thread? I have mentioned nothing of weapons. I really don't know how to tell you that threads and conversations quickly change topic. I'm genuinely curious what statement on gun violence my question was supposed to be making.
If you follow through to the referenced article, they show a map of CA with extremely high variability between counties. Moreover, the county boundaries themselves are quite broad geographically. For example, it shows Contra Costa as having 5+ gun deaths per 100k, but do you think that's Walnut Creek and Pleasanton's contribution? Or Concord's? Similar questions could be asked about Alameda or Los Angeles counties.
Can you elaborate on how this disqualifies the study findings? I also read it, they say:
"To describe the urban-rural distribution of firearm mortality, we used the county-level metropolitan/nonmetropolitan classification from the United States Department of Agriculture’s 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, which defines nonmetropolitan (rural) counties as having communities of fewer than 50,000 people with less than 25% of the workforce commuting to a metropolitan(urban)county".
I'm not sure how to reconcile that note with figures 5, 6 which show county level aggregation. Moreover, I just noticed that this survey deals with firearm mortality and not homicides by gunshot.
Broadly speaking, if someone says "we should severely curtail gun ownership because at a per-county level some counties have very high firearm mortality rates," it does seem reasonable to me to object on the basis that:
1. in terms of the intersection of quality of life and foundational rights, I care more about the rate of homicide, not gun mortality (which includes accident and suicide). Rights imply responsibility, so the appropriate question is whether people are capable of being responsible with their rights. It is irresponsible if you harm others with the exercise of your freedom.
2. on the basis of individual cities and towns, high gun ownership (freedom) does not seem to correlate to higher homicide (irresponsibility). That phenomenon seems restricted to dense urban areas where gun control is already in effect, and other geographies -- mostly poorer regions where stronger gang and drug enforcement seems warranted.
I'm trying to understand the problem with defining rural and urban areas at a county level. Aren't they looking at per capita fatality rates? Obviously urban centers massively out populate rural ones. I don't really see how rural land around an urban center is poisoning the results here. Ultimately, the authors found that gun violence per capita isn't significantly greater in urban counties than in rural ones.
> Furthermore, I do not want my children playing with other families who have guns inside the household. I don't see it as safe.
So we get to the crux of it. It's not the signs that prevent you from socializing with your community.
On to the signs. "Posted, no trespassing" is an indication that bad things may happen if you jump a fence. Maybe all it is is getting arrested and charges pressed. Do signs like that make you feel unsafe?
Signs like that are intended to deter the wrong kind of people, that is, those who would harm you. They have the added side effect of bringing together like minded people, and deterring socialization from people with a problem with it.
> On to the signs. "Posted, no trespassing" is an indication that bad things may happen if you jump a fence. Maybe all it is is getting arrested and charges pressed. Do signs like that make you feel unsafe?
No. Those suggest a normal, decent, measured response, rather than a spirit of escalation. A sign like "talk shit, get hit" would worry me though.
Let me start off by saying I love playing with guns, and really frankly anything gun related. I don't know why it is but I've just been fascinated with them since I was a kid.
Ok that said, I don't understand how guns protect us from the government. I think the biggest threats area slow and mundane. Ie erosion of rights or increasing power of some portion of the government over decades. There's no one cataclysmic event that overnight would make sane people take up arms and start popping off.
Likewise, let's say the government went all evil-like. Like in a movie. And you somehow got a huge citizen resistance trying to fight the government forces, unlike in real life where apparently the country would be split and half would join the government forces. The government has armor, air support, artillery, surveillance, and logistics. This isn't the 1700s. Just access to small arms is meaningless unless the 2nd amendment is broadened to include all weapons. And even then, machine guns, manpads, tanks and heat are just tools and a tiny, inconsequential part of warfare.
You always see gun people plinking away at stationary targets. Arguing about mlok vs picatinny. Maybe practicing their tacticool speed reloads. You rarely see people practicing force on force cqb, urban fighting, how to fight as a team.
IMO citizens being well armed is deterrence. It makes the likelihood of 'evil martial law' government less likely by increasing the perceived cost. If you truly disarmed the entire country (something I consider basically impossible), it makes a military coup/governance much more feasible. One of the main lessons of modern history is that insurgencies are incredibly cost effective ways to fight a stronger opponent. You basically have to be willing to commit terrible crimes against humanity to overcome them.
Of course this is all theorizing. I don't America is in danger of that sort of civil war just yet.
The moment anybody tried to organise armed resistance to the government, they would instantly be declared “terrorists” and taken out by legal means or by force. The US government agencies have such information supremacy that it is nearly impossible for any armed groups to organise without the government knowing about it.
The biggest threats are slow and mundane because the population is heavily armed. Anything fast and oppressive (ex.: Australia's Covid lockdown) would be seriously opposed. The "Waco" incident was a fast and oppressive move (violent SWAT-type raid on a group for a small paperwork/tax violation), those targeted fought back, gov't didn't do it again for decades.
Government isn't going to attack lots of individuals via tanks/artillery/etc scattered thru innumerable suburban neighborhoods.
Every year >20,000,000 US individuals partake in live-fire live-target drills, acting practically as lone wolves, as well- and self-equipped snipers in Operation "Deer Season". Just 0.001% of those, sufficiently motivated, would paralyze an oppressive government.
Yes, most "plinking" aren't practicing for serious combat. But they are practicing, and even with a high attrition rate they would, as a diffuse group, take down and/or demoralize violent oppressors. And that's not counting the small but far-from-trivial number taking CQB training seriously.
This year's legislative freak-out over thousands of unarmed & mostly-peaceful protesters occupying the Capitol wasn't so much what they did, but that they represented an enormous number who are well armed.
The US government probably seems less corrupt than the EU because of its laid back approach to a lot of policies. However, that's exactly the type of corruption that a lot of people are talking about.
The country needs a lot of change to tackle big problems like climate change and increasing wealth inequality however the government is sitting back doing nothing because many representatives are lobbied by big interests to let the big interests continue doing what they're doing.
Over the last few years it's become increasingly clear that many people don't think for themselves and will believe in whatever their favorite media tells them. A lot can be done to convince the population that climate change and income inequality aren't major issues.
Also, that poll seems flawed because it asks a superlative question (what is the "most" important problem) instead of using something like ranked choice where perhaps climate change and income inequality were everyone's second and third options.
I think there are many rights violated as a result of lobbying. Access to basic healthcare is curtailed in the name of profit, largely as a result of the power of lobbyists. I think this has a very large functional effect on the freedom of everyday people. Even if they have reasonable means they may be essentially forced to continue working for an employer who provides health insurance or risk personal financial ruin if poor health befalls them.
The power exerted by 3 letter agencies is greater than any other western nation in my opinion. They are massively bloated with excess capital and power, and it has allowed them to indefinitely extend their jurisdiction until it significantly overlaps with people's right to privacy.
That said I doubt either of these issues would be much improved without guns. An armed population seems mostly incidental. One downside of focusing on armed resistance, however, is that you can easily delude yourself into thinking you're better protected from tyranny, when in actuality the war is already being lost in courtrooms and political backrooms without a shot being fired.
It's very optimistic to say the least...maybe the OP was assuming the shooter is just a really poor marksman, or using a BB gun?
That said...I'd take being shot by a bullet any day compared to being shot by a modern bow/crossbow. Definitely a better chance of surviving the bullet.
The stat might reflect reality. But reality reality probably includes a lot of people shot in extremities and shrapnel bouncing back from steel targets.
If someone is shooting to stop a threat they're probably gonna have better than 5/1000 odds of permanently stopping the threat.
> In December, a jury in Corpus Christi, Tex., acquitted a 48-year-old man who spent 664 days in jail after being charged with attempted capital murder for wounding three SWAT officers during a no-knock raid that targeted his nephew. The jury concluded that the man, Ray Rosas, did not know whom he was firing at through a blinded window.
Breonna Taylor wasn’t charged in court and persecuted (technically it was her bf who was shooting back). Irrespective of whether her death was legal or not, The question was simply about the legality. Kenneth Walker, boyfriend of Breonna Taylor, was never prosecuted.
Yes, the charges were eventually dropped, but Walker spent a couple of months in jail. Taylor's killing was an extrajudicial execution, as her murderers weren't charged. Walker can't sue the cops, thanks to qualified immunity, but the cop he shot is suing him.
Yes; it usually doesn't end well, and as
NoImmatureAdHom notes the rights violation has to rise to the level at which lethal force is justified in self-defense, but it does happen and people get cleared of the inevitable charges, that's happened in my home town although the shooting did not kill the officer. And
armenarmen's link doesn't include the case where black grandmother was killed in her dwelling, that didn't end well for the police.
It's always retrospective, of course, because whether you are "allowed" will be determined in court afterwards. The answer is sometimes yes. Usually you're only allowed to kill, or attempt to kill people when your or someone else's life is immediately at risk.
No...because no matter what the reality is, you will be painted as a criminal, and charged/convicted as such. It's more likely there is no charge/conviction step, and instead you will be murdered by another police officer under a false pretext of a "firefight". The story that we all hear will not reflect reality; you will take the truth to your grave.
There are numerous examples of this happening, a couple mentioned in responses to you, but in Indiana I know that a law was passed a few hears ago (with quite a bit of protest from police unions) saying basically that you can treat a cop as an armed intruder if he forcibly enters your house without a warrant.
What rights of mine have gun owners protected? The 2nd amendment has protected the 2nd amendment, through compliant courts that have turned gun ownership into an entitlement.
Over the years, taxation has gone up and down. Representation has gone up and down (universal suffrage, countered by gerrymandering and voter suppression). I don't see a relationship.
Situations like China effectively exterminating populations they don’t like are why gun rights are so important.
Order men to re-education camps and forcing their women to sleep in same bed as police/watchdogs gets a lot less appealing if the woman can shoot their government mandated rapist.
Yes, in the same way that nothing wrong happened during Cultural Revolution when armed factions of Red Guard fight with each other. Also, I'm not sure how you imagine small militia fighting with worlds biggest army.
The murder rate varies widely by state/area. Chicago's murder rate is significantly higher than its suburbs.
The murder rate in the town (37k residents) I live in (in the south) is effectively zero. I wouldn't doubt that all of my neighbors around me (most of us are originally from a northern state) have guns and we've managed not to kill each other.
Do you think the French revolution didn't require violence?
One fact about murders that has exceptionally low variance is the likelihood of personally knowing the person that murders you. This is 90%, in almost all circumstances and areas.
Means, the gun, is only one part of the equation and has been noted generally the smallest. Motive is far more important when attempting to put murder rates into context.
Ok, so we can either enact gun reform like most of the entire world has done or we can completely alienate ourselves from other people in hopes they don't shoot us. Do you see why gun-ownership is an anti-social trait?
There are also fairly basic lifestyle choices that drastically increase your odds of being murdered. If you aren't part of a gang, and you don't have a male partner with violent tendencies, your odds of being killed are much lower than the national average.
I wouldn't be surprised if the murder rate of my town of 100k people is about on par with a British or German town of 100k people, since we don't have any gang presence here.
The same is true in other countries. Berlin has a murder rate vastly higher than the countryside, and let's not mention Frankfurt. However even the crime cesspool that is Berlin has a murder rate comparable to or lower than the "low crime" areas in the US.
States have different laws. Some states are more strict about guns while others are more lax.
States in the US have significantly more difference than the regions in France (or whatever they are called). It is probably more accurate to compare the US to the EU and France to an individual state.
France is on its fifth republic. Their first republic started slightly after the US Constitution went into effect. Between those five republics they've had a couple of monarchies and military dictatorships. Though to be fair, a lot of those transitions resulted from France losing wars.
The coup was attempted by military that were not happy with the way things were going in Algeria (i.e. France was losing it). They were not the only ones, and France was coming apart at the seams.
De Gaul, who had been out of power since 1946 when he resigned, understood that he could unify the country behind him, and "proposed" himself as a mr fixit. He obtained the support of the various generals he still knew from WW II, got himself elected by the French, and lead the country for another 10 years (during which he ended up getting out of Algeria)
He was always very sensitive of having the confidence of the French, and at several occasions made it clear that he would go if such-and-such vote would not work out. He resigned in 1969 after losing a referendum on some subject.
TIL, however I don’t think that’s important in the context of the effectiveness of armed civilians being able to have much influence.
If anything, rumours to the effect that Republican senators/representatives are only still publicly supporting Trump because they fear armed Trump supporters, could (iff true) be a relevant example.
It’s actually a counterexample—the 1958 coup overthrew the democratically elected government.
Then Charles De Gaulle came out of retirement and promised to write a new constitution, and since he was widely respected by both the military and the general public, everything settled down. Of course, this technique only works if you have Charles De Gaulle.
We've reduced the barrier to making a death threat to the point that "X routinely receive death threats" is probably true where X is any public figure.
On the one hand, things like social media make “blowing off steam in private with your mates” basically indistinguishable from what used to be “going out of your way to send a letter to someone to harass or threaten them”. I don’t think that’s a reduction, so much as the system not accounting for the changes wrought by tech (see also: Robin Hood Airport trial).
On the other: while I expect anyone known to more than 1000 people to have other people sounding off about them — and while I expect anyone known to 100k Americans to have indistinguishable-from-plausible threats from gun owners who gained those guns despite specific delusional mental states that ought to have excluded them from gun ownership — Jan 6th had more than just that: it had the extra level of demonstrating that there were a lot of people who were not merely performatively angry FirstnameBunchOfNumbers internet accounts but real people with the means and motivation to travel to DC and to force their way into the Capitol building and private offices therein, to bring Molotovs and pipe bombs with them to DC, to not merely chant “hang Mike Pence” but to do so when someone had set up a gallows (or vice versa, timeline unclear for me).
A rational person compares risks on an absolute scale first. Out of all the things that could happen on a given day, is getting murdered a real concern? For people in the U.S., it's not really worth worrying about unless you have some other risk factors for murder, like criminal activity.
If you are selling lion repellant that makes a lion attack 80% less likely, that's not something I'd be interested in.
That being said, it's great that some countries have driven a small risk down to oblivion. Not sure that firearm laws have much to do with that, though. Probably more to do with policing structure.
When the mobs came to a town next door last year, I knew the safety of my family hinged on which street they were going to choose to go down next, and my own ability to respond.
I watched them smash windows and set fires with zero police response. Any doubts I may have had about my gun collection went out the window that night.
The "guns as fire extinguisher" analogy is apt. It wasn't likely that a mob would threaten my neighborhood, just as it isn't likely any particular person's house will ever catch fire. But I will remain prepared.
The poster to whom I replied was citing averages, which are useless in the context of a large, diverse place like the US with a non-uniform distribution.
The average murder rate in the US is a distraction, except to point out (as I did) that obviously people aren't dropping like flies. If any significant fraction of those 300M guns were killing people, the average would be several orders of magnitude higher than it is.
Go ahead and exercise your personal rights to defend yourself and your family as you see fit based on your values and risk profile.
The averages neither support the idea that we should ban guns, nor that we should all get one. Because, again, averages are pretty useless -- but that's the context of the current thread of discussion, so I felt a need to respond.
Love Japanese food. Not sure I'd want to eat it for every meal for the rest of my life. I bet a large part of why I love it is that it's one choice among many.
You said, "the U.S. murder rate is not all that remarkable". Someone pointed out that claim is demonstrably false. So your response is, "is getting murdered a real concern?" You established a metric, and when it was shown not to support your world view, you try to discredit your own metric. That's called moving the goal post. It is not something a "rational person" does.
An irrational person uses irrelevant data as justification to ignore preventable deaths. We're not talking about how many car wrecks, or heart attacks, or rabid vending machines are out there, we're talking about gun-related homicide and suicide. Preventable deaths that we can prevent just like every other first world country does, but we just choose not to.
I think the point was that the rate is low enough that the risk of being murdered is not a concern for most people most of the time - yes, it is abnormally high relative to other countries, but it's also so low that it's extremely unlikely to be an individual's cause of death.
Your odds of being murdered in the U.S. are very low compared to many other ways of dying (see e.g. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db395.htm), so yeah, it'd be great to see the murder rate lowered (that's always good, right?), but even if you did something drastic that managed to cut the odds in half, it would not have any discernible impact on most people's day to day lives nor on their ultimate cause of death because so few people end up dying that way.
The rate of shooting in the USA was always strange to me. I'm from Ukraine, one of the poorest countries in Europe, the country that on hybrid "civil war" with Russia help for the militia.
There are many ex-militaries from volunteers who go to volunteer battalions. And many of them return with guns.
But even with a state like that, you probably won't hear any gunshots in cities in your life. The first time I heard one was where I took a trip to the USA, random "gang" shooting in NY, as I remember.
From my perspective, as someone who is culturally not so integrated with the USA, I think the roots of this are how you see guns and feel around firearms at all. In my country, people are cautious about the idea of using a firearm against other people. Even if they have one, they probably do drunk shit with a knife, not with a gun.
Anyway, I also can't understand how any gangs are still alive in the USA in our time. Even my shittiest country eliminated all of them in the 90s, so are Russia and other CIS countries. You can find many documentation films about that on youtube. There is almost nothing left except massive graveyards of dead criminals with funny grave tomb pictures like "sitting in my first Mercedes Benz with a gun, cool guy."
I may be wrong somewhere. That's just my perspective as an outsider.
Ignore averages. They are often deceptive, and here as well. Most places in the US have zero gangs, and many places have zero murders.
The question is: why are murders so out of control in certain areas? And the answer is: local policing and local politics. DAs don't prosecute, and so police won't risk their life to bring people in. They show up 30 minutes later as the clean up crew.
So it's actually fairly normal for repeat offenses here because someone is never arrested, never charged, out on bail, plead down to a slap on the wrist, or out on parole where supervision is a joke.
Why are local politics so screwed up? That's an interesting question. One aspect is one-party rule: the Democrats are such an overwhelming majority in a lot of these inner cities that all the politics happen before the ballot is ever printed. Within the Democratic party, there's a dangerous contingent that simply doesn't want to imprison criminals for reasons I don't entirely understand.
Why do the people in such cities put up with such a bad system? Because even within those cities, the problem areas are contained, and can be safely ignored (sadly). "Root causes" sounds nicer than "lock 'em up", so most of the people in the city nod along and go about their business, and avoid the bad parts of town.
My guess is that Ukrainians just don't have time for that kind of nonsense. If someone is violent, they are put away quickly. The idea of making a deal with a violent criminal is probably not fashionable there. There are lots of poor people in Ukraine, and mostly the same skin color, so nobody puts up with the "violence is just a symptom of poverty and capitalism and racism and ten other problems that must be solved first". A few civil liberties probably get stomped along the way, which also helps bring crime down to low levels; but I don't think giving up civil liberties is a prerequisite of law and order.
Cant the "roots" be also in segregation problems before? If I remember correctly what I learned early, it was called something like "red lining" created "bad neighborhoods" in cities.
>My guess is that Ukrainians just don't have time for that kind of nonsense. If someone is violent, they are put away quickly.
It is mostly true for Ukraine. But the real curse, as I said, is not organized crime, gangs, or someone with a firearm. The biggest problem in Ukraine is domestic violence. Most police officers don't have any weapon here except pepper sprays, stun guns, and other non-lethal tools. They usually fight with a drunk 40-something man who will get drunk and try to kill his family after that.
Domestic violence is a curse for CIS countries. And even if Ukraine changed government and how everything works with new and young politicians, you can't change people. In the end, 40%+ of the population suffers violence, and most of them, of course, are women. Great inheritance from the Soviet era, where "no violence, no sex, no drugs, only happy people."
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Violence_against_women_in_Ukrain...
>According to the estimation of OSCE the violence towards women is widespread in Ukraine and it is associated with three times more deaths than the ongoing War in Donbas in the Donbas region of Ukraine
Fragment from the Wiki article. More women get killed by their husbands than people die in the ongoing war with artillery, tanks, aviation, etc.
This is as bad as you can imagine when you read it.
Want to know how Russia fights domestic violence? They just decriminalized it, that's all. They don't even try anymore, so the only help you can get is from non-profit organizations.
Maybe, but it's not relevant. Let's all fix the root problems, but let's not create a dependency on it. If we want to solve a problem, we have to solve the problem in the reality we have (flawed as it is), not the reality we want.
"The biggest problem in Ukraine is domestic violence."
Sad to hear. Going back to the main topic, it seems like you might be suggesting that women owning guns might be a solution to that problem?
> If we want to solve a problem, we have to solve the problem in the reality we have (flawed as it is), not the reality we want.
I totally agree here. It's not better than typical procrastination with waiting for "ideal env" to do anything. It won't happen. The "magic monday" when it's will be the best time to solve a problem won't happen.
You try to solve it, or you don't.
>it seems like you might be suggesting that women owning guns might be a solution to that problem?
I'm not sure about that one.
Would it actually help women in that situation? I'm not even sure if that won't just create additional problems without any help for the original case.
"Anyway, I also can't understand how any gangs are still alive in the USA in our time. Even my shittiest country eliminated all of them in the 90s, so are Russia and other CIS countries. You can find many documentation films about that on youtube. There is almost nothing left except massive graveyards of dead criminals with funny grave tomb pictures like "sitting in my first Mercedes Benz with a gun, cool guy.""
The U.S. has the rule of law, due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc.
Poland here - we also had issues with gangs and organised crime after collapse of communist government. It took few years for situation to stabilise, but then we got rid of gangs with legal system and police. So it looks a little bit weird that USA with older systems and democracy (not to mention better armed police) can't won with organised crime.
>The U.S. has the rule of law, due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc.
It's the same here, and we use roman law, so there won't be any precedents what someone gets to the court. All cases are the exception and go through all the processes without looking back on the same cases.
Why would you think that the USA is the only country that has it? We even got incredible labor laws. They are so good that we don't even need unions for protection against companies.
And just a reminder, that USA is #1 by prisoners in the world.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262961/countries-with-th...
Not so innocent, huh?
I know, most people in the USA think that other countries are like poor villages without tech and law there.
But even poor Ukraine is much more digitalized and advanced in tech. Still, even in the case of transparency of how the law works, where the budget goes (you can even vote with your mobile app where you want to spend budget money in your city), court cases, it's all digitalized, transparent, and easy to check by anyone.
To be more precise, here are some links on typical bankings[1][2], government open source big data on all information that happened in the country[3], digitalized id and passport, with all the documents and request for any data or papers[4], transparent government tenders[5] and one of big media project that does all the corruption investigations with big politicians in it[6]. And no one from journalists even got arrested for that.
With these links and information, I want to say that it's funny that people think that other countries got some shady government, there is no power of law, and all people are struggling without real freedom.
Do you have LGBT raves to block entrance to the White House and annoy the president? Because we do[7]
Vermont has fairly permissive guns laws, no permit necessary to buy and carry an assault weapon. murder rate is 1.8, vs 3.0 in Europe.
What is it about Vermont, where you can walk around with concealed assault weapons, that makes it safer than "Europe"?
Czech Republic is an exception, it's a shall issue European country. The majority of gun owners also have concealed carry permits. Homicide rate is very low, only 0.9.
"Vermont Business Magazine Vermont reported the 3rd lowest murder rate (1.8) compared to other states. This was 3.1 points below the national average of 4.9 homicides per 100,000 individuals, according to a new report from safewise.com(link is external). In fact, the three states from Northern New England had the lowest murder rates."
3x a small number is still a small number. Your chances of getting struck by lightning increase if you live on a hill, but no one is basing home buying decisions on that.
The real argument is that guns enable acts that, while rare, and while they affect few people, are so egregious that we as a society will go to great lengths to ensure they never happen (school shootings).
Note this is just murder, but murder is merely a small fraction of gun deaths.
The multiplier for all firearm-related deaths between the US and EU average for example is around 12X, more than an order of magnitude [1].
The elephant in the room however is that the main argument simply doesn't hold up. Owning a gun doesn't just make the owner slightly more likely to get shot, but also everyone around them [2]
Or, as they say: The only thing you need against a bad toddler with a gun is a good toddler with... nah, not going there. Too sad actually.
Statistic after statistic says clearly that a society with more guns is less safe for everyone (the Switzerland outlier is easily explained by banning of owning munition instead of guns in peace time).
I wish Americans could get a feeling of how different a society without a perpetual feeling of danger and paranoia feels like. Where children just go to school without security checks, amok drills and bulletproof safe rooms.
Of course a country with more firearms is going to have more firearm-related deaths. The same is true for automobiles or bridges or baseball bats. The relevant question is what the overall death rate is.
For instance, Japan, per capita, has fewer firearms-related suicides than the US, but it has more suicides. I’d be willing to bet it has more train-related suicides than the US. Does this mean Japan’s suicide rate would go down if they had fewer trains and more guns? No, it just means that suicidal Japanese use the tools that are available to them, as do suicidal Americans.
Britain has very low rates of gun violence. But it has increasing rates of knife violence. Is this because Brits have too much access to knives? Or is it because violent people use the tools that are available to them? Britain is cracking down on knives, but even if they make it nigh-impossible to peacefully chop vegetables in your own kitchen, British criminals will just switch to screwdrivers or cricket bats or the Millwall Brick. But hey, at least you won’t have any more British toddlers getting hurt by playing with kitchen knives.
> I wish Americans could get a feeling of how different a society without a perpetual feeling of danger and paranoia feels like. Where children just go to school without security checks, amok drills and bulletproof safe rooms.
Americans a century ago were just as well armed as today (perhaps more so) and had none of that nonsense. It used to be that if you were an American teenager in a rural area, you could even drive to school with your hunting rifle still in your pickup and nobody would care.
Yeah, when I was in highschool (mid 90’s) the principal told us to bring our guns to the office and he’d hold on to them rather than leaving them in the truck. Then we’d pick them up at the end of the day and go hunting. No one even thought that was strange. Now I have to make sure I don’t drive on school property when I have a gun in my car when I go pick my kids up. Park off campus and walk.
>It used to be that if you were an American teenager in a rural area, you could even drive to school with your hunting rifle still in your pickup and nobody would care.
my mom (born 1961) described her high school parking lot as exactly this. she described it as sort of a "clique"/social strata thing, like, guys I associate with wearing heavy Carhartt work coats to school every day and jeans with a clear indentation of a chew can (despite being under 18), would've been the kinds of guys who would proudly leave their sometimes multiple hunting firearms in gun racks in their pickup trucks in the high school parking lot, which nobody had any issue with at all.
1991, the year I was born, someone held up a class at the same high school with a sawed-off shotgun. nobody was hurt but he discharged a few shells into a wall. last I checked you could still see how rough the buckshot-riddled concrete wall still is, despite having been painted over. (interestingly, this story never made national news...)
I went on to attend the same high school and sometime around 2008 we had a complete school lockdown one Monday because a kid had left a paintball gun in his car from over the weekend... in the parking lot of the other high school across town. pretty sure he was tried for a felony.
>I went on to attend the same high school and sometime around 2008 we had a complete school lockdown one Monday because a kid had left a paintball gun in his car from over the weekend... in the parking lot of the other high school across town. pretty sure he was tried for a felony.
This is what you get when everyone at every level feels compelled to "do something".
I went to school in the 90s and two kids shot up their high school. They murdered 12 students and one teacher. It was called the "Columbine massacre" after the name of the school, Columbine high school in Colorado.
sometime in 7th grade, in the 03-04 school year, our student counselor came into our class one day and gave a presentation about something along the lines of identifying signs of school shooter-types in your fellow classmates, or something. she said "I know you're going to say 'awesome,' but the Columbine shooters had made a level of their school in a video game, and they used it to practice their shooting before they did it." (everyone predictably whispered "dude, awesome.") despite being ostensibly too young, I was a huge DOOM fan at the time, and I was quite knowledgeable about the Columbine incident because it fascinated me. so I raised my hand and told the student counselor that this was false and merely an urban myth—one could go online and find "the Harris WADs" quite easily, and it was pretty well-known among anyone who had a passing interest in the WAD scene that none of these maps, in fact, resembled a school, much less that particular high school, in any way. she made me sit in the hall.
It used to be that if you were an American teenager in a rural area, you could even drive to school with your hunting rifle still in your pickup and nobody would care.
My Silent Generation father grew up in a city, which quickly turned rural at its edges, and it was routine to keep your hunting long gun in your locker to save a trip back home for hunting before or after school. Antonin Scalia mentioned carrying his .22 target rifle on the NYC city subways to and from practice.
>It used to be that if you were an American teenager in a rural area, you could even drive to school with your hunting rifle still in your pickup and nobody would care.
My grandmother's high school had an elective class where they would even shoot at the school.
The vast majority of Americans do have a feeling of society without perpetual danger and violence. Gun violence is only a real concern in a handful of cities like Detroit and Baltimore. Now we should do more to improve safety in those cities, and our society has let those places down. But for everyone else those cities might as well be in another country. In my city most years the murder rate is literally zero.
If you read the distorted stories in the news media you'll get a completely unrealistic impression of how most Americans actually live.
I live in San Diego and two people were just shot on the same block as my house. One of them died and he was exactly my age. It's where I do regular walks, next to a nearby Pokemon gym.
And once you (start paying the Dane-geld) give into that paranoia, that paranoia never goes away (get rid of the Dane); it just gets larger and larger.
The end state for the nations that sacrifice themselves to paranoia is that other nations that have managed to control their paranoid impulses take over the ones that can't, but that takes a while and generally leaves those conquered worse off than before. That said, inactions have consequences.
> murder is merely a small fraction of gun deaths.
You must mean the others are suicides. Why not say so?
> The multiplier for all firearm-related deaths between the US and EU average for example is around 12X, more than an order of magnitude [1].
Ah, because by not saying so you can make up this 12X figure, by comparing firearm suicides in Europe where in many cases there is marginal civilian gun ownership with firearm suicide in the US where there is widespread civilian gun ownership.
Of course this is a flawed comparison, because Americans don’t commit suicide at 12x the rate of Europeans, they just happen to use guns rather than other methods.
The giveaway that your comparison is deliberately misleading is that you don’t mention suicide. You intentionally hide how you get to this 12x figure.
The Switzerland outlier is explained by a culture of safe handling.
Their gun culture is certainly an outlier in Europe, compared to even the Swiss. Very permissive, and yet murder rates are essentially on par with entirely gun-less Asian countries vaunted for their "safety".
"I wish Americans could get a feeling of how different a society without a perpetual feeling of danger and paranoia feels like."
And I wish you could better grasp just how big and diverse America is. :) There are parts with terrible problems that make for scary headlines, but those parts are not in any way representative of very large swaths of the country. Where I live there is essentially zero violence (of any kind). We don't live with perpetual feelings of danger or paranoia - heck, we often forget to lock our doors at night.
> I wish Americans could get a feeling of how different a society without a perpetual feeling of danger and paranoia feels like.
Do you think having fire drills and extinguishers is "a perpetual feeling of danger and paranoia"?
> Where children just go to school without security checks, amok drills and bulletproof safe rooms.
Maybe try to do something against bullying? It might seem a bit harsh but having been on the receiving end of that, it's hard to find empathy for those people that panic once the victims start fighting back.
Along your line of thought, I think with the threat of earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornados, car crashes, plane crashes, hackers, identity theft, terrorism, etc, anyone who wishes to live with a perpetual feeling of danger and paranoia can freely do so, there's no need to pick firearms in particular.
> I wish Americans could get a feeling of how different a society without a perpetual feeling of danger and paranoia feels like.
Me too, but that will never happen. Consider America's past: armed revolution, native genocide, violent [secret] coups with foreign governments, murder of its' own citizens by "peace officers", it goes on and on... It's not a peaceful place with a peaceful history, so I don't think your wish is too realistic. That said...you did say "wish", and I wish it also.
Comparing the relatively densely populated, ethnically homogenous, lower income inequality E.U. states to the U.S. does not make for an equal comparison. Simply look at how the bulk of firearm homicides are restricted to perhaps a hundred or so ZIP codes nationwide to see the disparity. See Chicago for example. [0]
> go to great lengths to ensure they never happen (school shootings)
To dig into the far past...the potential bodycount during Columbine dwarfs the actual body count because they only were able to kill victims with guns. Their explosives failed, and hundreds of lives were spared as a result.
Yeah - I think that's the core, outlier events are extremely bad.
I think there are real things that could be done short of a total ban, but the issue in the US it's a constitutional right so it's hard to restrict in any sensible way and it's politically impossible to amend.
As it is, the policy question is accepting the tradeoff of the right to bear arms vs. rare, but extremely awful death of school children. I'm not really taking a strong position, I think that's just the reality of it.
Don't forget the history of the 20th Century where such "outlier events" included 100 million previously disarmed people killed by Communists running their countries, and the Left likes to remind us of the small death tolls in right wing countries, although many of those were fighting communists. See also the WWI era Armenian Genocide which was so ignored by the rest of the world it convinced Hitler he could do as he pleased.
Anyone who dismisses any of the "white terrors" and the general repressions/pogroms/genocides (Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Argentina, Chile, Imperial Japan, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria etc.) that happened in right wing countries isn't to be taken seriously.
Then I guess it's a good thing I not only brought them up, but didn't dismiss them. But only the ignorant, idiots or partisan Leftists claim the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Aberter as in worker) is "right wing." Even if these national socialists were at daggers drawn with international socialists from their founding, would in fact be a footnote in history without the existential threat from Communists.
I'd grant you Imperial Japan, but I wasn't talking about them or what they did, which you fail to notice was done to others, non-Japanese peoples. Like how I noted the Armenian (and lessor known but still significant Greek) genocides by Muslims running Turkey were also of a different nature.
Meanwhile, you might want to try a legitimate reply attacking what I said, not myself.
I'd actually argue that guns don't enable these egregious acts, they're just a popular tool. If someone wants to kill a bunch of people there are lots of ways of doing it. Guns are fixed in the imagination because we've evolved to be specifically good at modeling intentional, face-to-face interpersonal violence. See action movies.
Why doesn't the data back that up then? Do you really think that toddlers blow their own heads off because America has an iherently murderous identity and it has nothing to do with reckless access to guns?
It doesn't seem like you've done the work of actually engaging with the data. Toddlers don't blow their own heads off at any appreciable rate. There are a few hundred "accidental" firearms deaths in the U.S., a nation of 330,000,000 people, in a given year (almost all of which are adults). Many of those are not really accidents (people who plan to commit suicide want insurance money, religious burial, etc.).
Your comment is 100% spot on. It's not the unhinged criminals with handguns and a couple rifles I am worried about. It's the single pissed off vet who drives a moving truck to a federal building packed to the brim with fertilizer.
Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided.
So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul.
not even counting accidents and suicides which are also made worse by the high availability of guns for everyone
The suicide statistics from some countries with effective total bans on civilian gun ownership do not support your claim for those, and for accidents we're at 500/year out of a population of 330 million people. There were years when more very young kids were accidentally drowning themselves by getting stuck upside down in 5 gallon (19 L) plastic buckets that are are ubiquitous here.
If Americans didn't fight against the Patriot act, wars, torture, what will they fight for? Mask mandates?
Are any of these, the middle ones not directly affecting us, worth starting a civil war that would take hundreds of thousands to millions of lives?
(I might argue yes for the wars, but it's not the sort of thing I suspect has ever happened in human history.)
> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul
I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation. And there's no need for them to do that, realistically.
> I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation.
Why are you talking about the "average first world person"? IIRC, Afghanistan is a country of ~30 million people, and the most recent estimates I saw said the Taliban only had ~75 thousand fighters. That's 0.25%. So not even the average Afghan did that.
Also, guerilla warfare isn't so much about living in caves as melting into the population.
Or, as in Afghanistan, actively supported by the population who hated both the occupiers and the VICE (Vertically Integrated Criminal Enterprise) known as the government.
Sure, it won't happen if everyone's life is still comfortable, that's the point. It's a safeguard against life becoming so extremely uncomfortable that the people started fighting.
Still, one of the first signs of a society approaching tyranny is the government cracking down on guns. So if nothing else, it serves as a great canary in the mine.
That is not actually true historically. That is popular talking point.
On the other hand, quite a few authoritarian tyrannical movements started by arming themselves and taking it on themselves to get power. Both nazi and communists started as private citizens arming themselves and causing fights in the streets or robbing people.
"On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."
In addition to the restrictions, Ellerbrock said the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons.
"The gun policy of the Nazis can hardly be compared to the democratic procedures of gun regulations by law," Ellerbrock told us. "It was a kind of special administrative practice (Sonderrecht), which treated people in different ways according to their political opinion or according to ‘racial identity’ in Nazi terms.""[0].
One example close from home, Belarus and Russian governments have gone to lengths in order to limit gun ownership. It is actually very difficult, at least legally. Perhaps when you are trying to stir a revolution you might speak to the nation arming itself. Once you have taken power, peacefully or otherwise, your next steps regarding gun control are still highly illuminating.
> I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation.
I think the people seizing those weapons should be less concerned about "average" gun owners, and more worried about fringe citizens willing to die to detonate a high yield explosive in the centers of power.
I sincerely doubt the average first world government has what it takes to sacrifice its comfortable bureaucracy and inspire even a tiny fraction of 330,000,000 citizens to fight back against tyranny.
That’s why federal legislators freaked out when a few thousand pissed off voters simply walked into the Capitol without permission - and without weapons. Every one of those mostly peaceful demonstrators represented a thousand equally angry, and well-armed, citizens not visible on security cameras.
> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban.
It takes a lot more than a Glock and a few boxes of ammunition from the sporting goods store to befuddle the US military. It takes fuel, food, medicine, training camps, and other infrastructure necessary to survive and fight back. You’re not going to get that in appreciable quantities in the middle of the US without Uncle Sam and several three letter agencies noticing. You would need the help of a foreign power and/or seizing land to tax... at which point the Second Amendment is moot. Might save you a few bucks to have all these small arms laying around, but it’s only a small piece of the puzzle.
> Which is exactly why we resist laws that ban rifles.
s/Glock/AR-15/, point still stands regardless of what common legal firearm you want to replace Glock with.
> I don't think you fully grasp the extent to which the US population is armed.
You have entirely missed the point. The existence of small arms is not what lead the Taliban to success against the US. They had billions of dollars from the opium trade, donations, and foreign aid. This money was not just spent to purchase weapons; it was used to fund training camps, fund recruiting operations, buy off politicians and local warlords, maintain supply lines, and the other infrastructure you need to wage war. These are the things the three letter agencies would take note of.
tl;dr: Small arms (in any quantity) are a small piece of what you would need to wage an effective insurgency against ol' Uncle Sam.
No it doesn't. The rhetoric of "remove weapons of war from America's streets" does not jive with the "small arms are not good enough weapons of war" argument.
> The existence of small arms is not what lead the Taliban to success against the US.
Okay, but Americans have more than that, they have everything you mentioned. They have the largest economy in the world from which to draw the wealth needed for those things. They have militias, they have state governments with treasuries, a significant portion of the population is trained by way of service in the military.
But even beyond all that, I think you're underestimating the importance of small arms in waging an insurgency. All of those other things exist only to ensure that bullets can be fired.
> The rhetoric of "remove weapons of war from America's streets" does not jive with the "small arms are not good enough weapons of war" argument.
I never mentioned removing or outlawing firearms. But by all means, continue to strawman.
> Okay, but Americans have more than that, they have everything you mentioned. They have the largest economy in the world from which to draw the wealth needed for those things. They have militias, they have state governments with treasuries, a significant portion of the population is trained by way of service in the military.
The functioning society of America has that, but a ragtag insurgency within the country does not. Do you think those state treasuries are physical things you can raid? Do you think corporate America isn't going to help keep the status quo? Do you think all of the anti-crime monitoring (especially in the realm of finance) won't notice any of this before it gets too big? Government gets a whiff of this and it's all too easy to paint the group as a bunch of right-wing nutjobs and sick the ATF on them.
The initiating event would have to be so catastrophic that a large percentage of the population "defects" in a very short timespan. And at that point things are so cataclysmic that the Second Amendment isn't even a factor any more.
> I think you're underestimating the importance of small arms in waging an insurgency.
And I think you're underestimating everything else. The successful insurgencies in history generally did not start out with a well armed population. Small arms are easy to smuggle in once everything else is going--especially when you have a foreign benefactor.
why? The taliban is not like a nation state army, more like a bunch or militias and tribes, each of which is a “bunch of local guys with guns”. As the war has progressed, I imagine they have got more professional, but I’m guessing around 80-90% of their strength are non ideological tribal militias who are very good at figuring out which way the wind is blowing and changing sides. That worked in the US favor in 2001-2 when the northern alliance was winning, and against US interests now, that’s why resistance collapsed so quickly back in 2001 and now.
They are not local guys with guns. They were not local guys with guns years before last war. The region fighters started, long time ago, by being trained by army (American) and were sponsored by multiple governments over years.
They are trained, funded disciplined. They are also local guys and local guys join them often. But then become part of something bigger.
I'd encourage the fanboys who are inevitably triggered by this assertion to just compare dimensions and shipping weights on key components. The F150 is a much heavier vehicle all around.
Blaming the Afghanistan War on the "Deep State" is a very odd choice to me. Does the Deep State ratify authorizations for the use of military force and approve military spending budgets?
>>> Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided.
>> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul.
> Blaming the Afghanistan War on the "Deep State" is a very odd choice to me. Does the Deep State ratify authorizations for the use of military force and approve military spending budgets?
You missed the point, which was the kind of thinking that says armed civilians stand no chance against a modern military also says the US should have prevailed in Afghanistan.
I believe "deep state" here is a tendentious term that refers to the permanent, unelected parts of the executive branch. Their expert analysis said the US was just about to "turn the corner" for 20 years. It's not about the decision to go in the first place.
I believe "deep state" here is a tendentious term that refers to the permanent, unelected parts of the executive branch. Their expert analysis said the US was just about to "turn the corner" for 20 years.
Exactly. See but the most recent controversy about Gen. Mark Milley, a complete abrogation of the principle of civilian control over the military, something that goes back to George Washington and one of the reasons we have so many places named after Cincinnatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
Also, how come we always only count murder, as opposed to gun violence? How many times is a gun pointed at somebody, or fired at somebody, or accidentally discharged, vs somebody actually dead?
I don't only fear for my life; I fear for my limb and safety and all the other good stuff too :)
(mind you, FWIW, and hopefully lateral to above questions, I'm not necessarily in the full "prohibit guns" camp, more of a "regulate&license", with thinking that since we regulate cars and airplanes and other potentially dangerous stuff that's even not explicitly made to harm we should regulate & license guns. But again, my questions above are from a more abstract perspective)
> Also, how come we always only count murder, as opposed to gun violence?
Because other countries use different definitions for those things. The definition of a "firearm death" is consistent, someone was shot they're now deceased.
The definition of "gun violence" could be a gun that wasn't even loaded or fired in some countries (e.g. pointing it menacingly), bullet-injury in others, pistol-whipping in yet others, for one example.
Crime statistics are a complex topic, with politics, collection methods, and definitions playing a major part. For one example, richer countries often have higher "crime" because they're better at collecting and recording crime statistics, not because crime doesn't occur in poorer countries. Even richer countries like the US have a "crime gap" if you compare recorded crime with victim crime surveys (e.g. NCVS).
Yeah, I can corroborate this. I've looked into the reporting details here and there, and reconciling even the U.S. and the U.K. is basically impossible.
There's also politicization of reporting, at least in the U.S. I recall some states (Maryland?) have laws that mandate reporting of any injury related to a gun (could be a minor burn or a cut finger web that needed stitches) as a firearm-related injury. The intent, of course, being that people wrongly infer that these were injuries inflicted by bullets traveling at high rates of speed.
Dead's dead, though. We don't lose track many of bodies in the developed world.
it's easier to count dead people. it's harder to obfuscate the numbers. One value is that you can see increases/trends/etc. and they are actually meaningful.
I think it quite likely Angola's reporting is broken. Coming up with accurate numbers even for a developed country is challenging.
>Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided.
Afghanistan, a fractious nation mostly comprised of illiterate peasants, has been able to fight off not one but two superpowers using mostly small arms.
The Afghanistan thing is an easy narrative, but it isn't really an accurate one. More accurate:
> Two superpowers found that Afghanistan, a fractious nation mostly comprised of illiterate peasants and devoid of exploitable industrial or natural resources, wasn't worth the price of occupying indefinitely.
Fair! It's a two-variable function though. How much is it worth to have? How much does it cost to keep? The Afghanis made the cost very, very high relative to what might be expected.
AIUI, the key word is "exploitable". Natural resources are worthless without the infrastructure to mine them and transport them to somewhere they can be used. Afghanistan, being landlocked, covered in VERY rugged terrain, and with relatively west-hostile neighbors (with lots of their own problems that make "develop port access for Afghanistan" a low priority) is a very difficult geographic place for resource extraction.
The whole argument that small arms are of no comparison to tanks and nuclear weapons are made by people who have no experience with firearms, fire fight and perimeter and assault tactics, or any type of military strategy. To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side). You would also have to assume that you could safely identify gun owners that would be willing to combat - if there's anything the US attempts to avoid (and with good reason) it is attacking non-combatants (it would be very easy to blend in to the normal population as we've seen in the Middle East). The difference here and the Civil War of 1865 was that there were clear demarcations between the sides. You would also have to assume that whatever resources you employ to launch this war would not interfere with any other outside enemy that may use this time as an opportunity to launch their own assaults (i.e. it would be a great opportunity for another 9/11). Mostly, this is a lazy half-thought-out argument.
> To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side).
This is totally speculation on my part, but it could be important to have a armed civilian resistance to create a "permission structure" for military defection. My understanding is that military strongly inculcates loyalty and obedience to the organization. Those seem like they'd be hard feelings to overcome, especially in isolation when the defection would be solitary and likely pointless. I'd think that in a lot of cases people would just muddle along for lack of options. Having a group to join and take your equipment to seems like it would make the decision much easier.
> To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side).
I hear this a lot from the right, and I think it's hogwash. The Biden administration has already begun ideological screening of military personnel. If the government is forced to go to war against its own people, it will be mostly aging, out-of-shape fanatics on one side and highly-trained, highly-motivated, younger loyalists to the legitimate government on the other. It'll be a rout.
Presumably in a war where the US government fought its citizens there would be world powers that would support the citizens, whether they wanted to help the citizens or simply weaken the US government.
If they have serious backing why aren't they lobbing ATGMs at each other the way we see nation state aided militias doing in every other conflict this century (Syria is a great example)?
The Taliban is "backed" by external powers to about the same extent the IRA was.
The VC were conveniently for the North used up in the Tet Offensive, after that it almost entirely the regular forces of the North. Who didn't need planes or warships for their second huge armored invasion after support US was withdrawn for the South.
I disagree that they're excellent examples when you consider the difference in terrain, infrastructure, the cultural and religious differences between the combatants and the status of one side as foreign occupying force.
There's really no way of knowing for sure, because you can't deny that many of the Talibans fought so fearlessly because of the certainty of their faith and religion.
The US murder rate isn't normally distributed. It's highly concentrated in a few hotspots, with most of the country living in areas with European murder rates.
The news is national though, so you wind up in this weird situation with suburbanites buying guns and worried about urban Chicago a thousand miles away.
Something that's important to keep in mind with murder rates is that they are tiny. That France's tiny number is more tiny than the US's tiny number is irrelevant. If you wanted to lower the frequency of unexpected deaths you'd spend all your time and money doing things that would encourage people to exercise more, or something like that.
Another thing to keep in mind is that murders are not random, whereas the other ways people die early often are pretty random (like car accidents). Regular Americans living regular lives have an effectively zero change of being murdered. Just ignore it.
> For reference, Angola is better at 4.85. Bulgaria and Romania, the poorest countries in the EU, are at 1.3. France is at 1.2.
I don't know about Angola, but in most european countries it's really easy to buy guns (for hunting, sharp-shooting, etc.). When my dad retired he joined a shooting club with his friends, the gun permit being slightly harder to obtain than a fishing permit. There are gun shops everywhere where you can buy guns and ammunition if you show your permit. There are of course regulations for carrying your gun, I don't remember exactly, but you have to carry ammunition and gun separately or something like that.
I guess the problem is not about the easy availability of guns, but that the american society is more violent.
Like a driving license, then. This means that anybody can get it, if they are moderately inrerested. It could be even a bit harder, and still be alright.
Well, considering that people live on average 80 years, I'd upperbound it to 4/1000 instead of 1/1000. Also I wouldn't call "dying less" a way to frame safety when talking about these type of chances.
So I guess Covid is twice to 4 times as deadly? I mean it's a very rough estimation and clearly I haven't considered everything. But ballparking it like this, I'd be inclined to say so.
Do you really think Angola's homicide rate is under 5 per 100k? Half the worldwide average? This is a pretty wild claim, knowing Angolan society.
OSAC notes that "A large percentage of street crime goes unreported and does not appear in official police statistics" -- it seems much more likely that this low number is a function of limited police reporting and data collection, rather than actual safety.
Idaho is at 2 and half of households have a gun. Puerto Rico has almost no firearms, and no land borders with the US, and is at 20. Pakistan has way more guns and is way poorer than Puerto Rico and is under 5.
Living in Romania, the thing I miss mostly when hiking in the mountains is a long rifle. This is for self defence against huge populations of bears and boars, not for anything else. Guns in the country side are also tools, not just weapons.
Homicide rate is low in Romania because we don't have violent criminal gangs, almost at all. It is a small country with different policing system. But there are plenty of guns in the hands of criminals, having a very restrictive gun policy does not help the ordinary citizens, just the criminals. Opening up would be leveling the conditions.
>we don't have violent criminal gangs, almost at all.
On the contrary, we have plenty of violent crime clans (mostly gypsy), they just don't use firearms but have no issue threatening you and your family or beating you into submission with melee weapons or bare hands/feet if you stand in the way of their (mostly) illegal activities while the local police, even when they're not on their payroll, are toothless thanks to the poorly defined laws and they can't, or simply can't be bothered to take much action against them unless they commit some extremely violent acts that get lots of media coverage for which higher levels of government are called for accountability.
1. Many of them were armed
2. That was because the Trump administration refused to send in the national guard for several hours after the terrorist attack on January 6th.
If the government does not stand up to terrorists attacking the US Capitol, then yes, they can take the building quite easily.
No, you're conflating people who were in DC with the yokels who "stormed" the capitol. As I recall, only one of the yokels had a gun. But it makes for more polarization if we can all make it seem as though they all had guns!
How many of those weapons were discharged? And how many were “seized” is not as interesting as how many were being held illegally? The government can illegally seize all sorts of things from citizens, including cash, but the process of doing so doesn’t make the original possession a crime
I was answering the question about whether any were armed or not, of which, the answer is yes: some absolutely were.
Getting a permit to carry in DC is extremely difficult to the point where there's no chance any of the protestors had one. That makes possession illegal. Also, a lack of proper licensing is mentioned several times in the article.
Yes, whenever people storm the Capital, calling for the VP's head - that's totally not a big deal. Maybe in the 3rd world that's just another Wednesday, but in the U.S. it was a very big fucking deal.
3,000 people died in 9/11 + countless long term deaths from asbestos, 2 wars that lasted around 20 years with what, 500K - 1M civilian deaths in Iraq and Afga? 168 deaths in OK City bombing including women and children, 270 deaths in the Lockerbie bombing including women and children. What are the long term affects of January 6th? Oh absolutely nothing? Get off the propaganda.
A coup is not as simple as getting a bunch of armed people into a building, you need widespread support from powerful agents to have any chance at all and I frankly find it funny that anyone in the US loses his head over this since the US has promoted coups through the world as if it was a sport, you would expect for people to at least understand how it works.
It provided an excellent opportunity to display Trump supporters as awful and it was used as such, but to call it an act of terrorism is absurd.
Seriously, I feel like recent history has shown so many flaws in the theory of guns protecting citizens from the government.
I remember during the tsarnaev brother's attacks the crazy amount of APCs and armored vehicles that were in the arsenal of just the police. What the fuck is 5.56 in the hands of some regular Joe going to do against even the lightest armor.
Not to mention the fact that it's not the fairytale tyrannical government vs the righteous citizenry. Turns out it can be subversive citizenry going up against other citizens.
Haven't the Taliban just taught us a 20-year lesson on how some guys with rifles and pickup trucks can humiliate a superpower? Low intensity warfare isn't about winning battles but disrupting governance. The guns in US citizens hands would easily be enough to disrupt governance in rural areas.
This only seems scary because analyzing crime data for a continent-sized country doesn’t make much sense. The overwhelming majority of gun crime happens in a tiny percentage of counties.
> with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided
I think your ideas are adorable. An armed populace is extremely effective in curbing government crackdown on people and yes, that is even true for small arms weapons aside from the fact that US soldiers would probably defect en masse. You think they would roll out the tanks? Even if they did, that is a fight no army could ever win. The Taliban started with sticks and stones and ended with attack helicopters.
I am not from the US and I don't think there is a more successful democracy or nation for that matter, so maybe other can learn a bit. The French Revolution was armed and an armed populace is a classical fear of rulers and the motivation for weapon laws.
There are advantages for policing of course. Policemen in Europe can be relatively sure they aren't fired upon in many cases and that results in completely different form of conduct with state executive forces. But there are other arguments for the US to allow arms, for topological and geographical reasons alone.
> Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided.
I find the historical and military ignorance of people who imply this even more adorable. Especially given the timing of the recent example, where the Taliban defeated a massive military force that was equipped with modern U.S. weaponry including tanks, helicopters, and armored vehicles.
Not to mention the countless other examples of uprisings using small arms successfully against superior military forces. Add in the fact that the U.S. citizenry is made up of tens of millions of military veterans and is more well armed than any civilian population in the history of the planet. It would not take long for a revolutionary force to take control of many military bases and armories within the U.S.
The idea that 50 or 100 million armed U.S. citizens couldn't defeat a few hundred thousand armed U.S. soldiers (most of whom would defect) is adorable in its child-like ignorance.
If you want to engage with the point accurately, you need to break out inner city gun violence rates from suburban/rural rates. Commenter's entire point is that high gun violence is geographically restricted. If you don't live in those areas, you live in a country where gun violence is as unheard of as a European country.
> i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided.
There's a difference between "fight" and "defeat". Anyone who thinks that a motley band of citizens with small arms is going to force the government to surrender is delusional. What they can do is make martial law very costly, by turning the country into a war zone (see also: Afghanistan).
The government really does get its power from consent of the governed. It may not seem that way, but most people are happy enough just to have stability, that they're going to stand by and keep their head down. But with a sufficiently armed populace, maintaining stability becomes simply impossible, which makes maintaining political favor an impossibility. The idea of a military coup is that you take control of a nation, not that you inherit a war zone.
Small arms aren't about winning, they're about making certain actions too politically costly. I have a tough time imagining the CCP's recent actions in Hong Kong, or the Uighur genocide, working so well if they were armed like the US. Arms necessitate boiling the frog.
I agree with your post but in terms of the above commenters use of the word "murder rate" is that even the metric we should be using for comparison? How about combining that with manslaughter?
Agreed with all of the above, but it addition, isn’t it obvious gun owners in the United States are much more likely to support any likely authoritarian government? They are mostly right wing, and the right wing in the US increasingly leans authoritarian.
This is an oversimplification to some degree, but even if we take this for the sake of argument, isn’t the obvious solution to stop treating gun ownership as a right wing issue?
Right; I don’t think the center-left should voluntarily disarm itself. (Socialists are surprisingly pro-gun; they have a saying that if you go far enough to the left, you get your guns back.)
> Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided.
As an American, so do I. A citizen revolution vs US Military under the thumb of a dictator would be hilariously asymmetrical. There are no consumer predator drones.
When was the last time a country successfully attacked its logistics base? How long would those drones continue to operate? Where would their operators and formal logistics tail have to live and sleep when they aren't on duty?
Murders aren't the only issue, though. Just the possibility of a gun being present changes a lot of interactions in the US.
Every police encounter has to assume you have a gun. A lot of innocent deaths at the hands of police are treated as "I thought he had a gun", which makes everybody scared of the police -- especially minorities. School children go through metal detectors every single day, never turning up any guns. Many are even required to carry transparent backpacks, just in case one has a gun.
And despite the low murder rate, many are still convinced that they're about to be killed by one of those many, many guns, as seen right here in this HN thread:
All of those guns have a significant, negative effect on daily life in America. The actual murders are comparatively few, but the ability of guns to appear at any instant keeps the entire country on edge, all the time.
> but the ability of guns to appear at any instant keeps the entire country on edge, all the time.
This is a fantasy. I’ve never been in a situation I’m the US where I thought a gun could appear at any time, and I don’t even live in a particularly great neighborhood.
Congratulations on never having encountered a police officer. If you do, you'll be very aware of the fact that they're treating you as if you were armed. I am aware of it, and I'm not even black -- and I've seen how much worse it is for black people.
Congrats, also, on graduating school before school shootings became a big thing. Me, too. It was great not having to go through metal detectors on my way to class.
I am sorry you don't ever fly, though. It's not a lot of fun, but there are a lot of great places to go, and it's usually worth the hassle of being checked for guns.
I’m not white and I’ve been stopped by police numerous times and have never been afraid of being shot. The chances of being involved in a school shooting are lower than the chance of being hit by lightning.
I also have flown many times. Nobody has ever ‘checked me for guns’. Generally they are checking for knives and explosives. You might be too young to remember, but much of today’s airport security was brought in as a response to 9/11.
If you really think a gun might appear at any moment, I recommend you do some research on how unlikely that actually is. It’s a totally unrealistic fear, and one that can only result from being misinformed.
You never been told to keep your hands on the wheel where they are visible to the police officer and not to make any sudden movements, when you are pulled over?
Yes, I have been told that. Frankly I always forget to be quite so procedural about it, but I’m always polite and cooperative with police, and generally let them guide the interaction, so it has never been a problem.
>And despite the low murder rate, many are still convinced that they're about to be killed by one of those many, many guns
I suspect the reason is because a higher than average proportion of people who post here tend to live in cities (and be in their 20s), where crime is both naturally higher and vastly more visible than it is when not in a city; this is why city people tend to be a lot more authoritarian and risk-averse than people who live in regions with population densities with a more favorable ratio of People Who Destroy Society per mile.
These people are people who, all else being equal, do things the average person would rather them not do, like property crime, pounding the apartment walls at 1 AM, shitting in the street, and the like. It's possible to build places where these things don't happen, but none of them are compatible with maintaining the political power of the risk averse as they currently exist today (even though, ironically, those places give even more power to the risk-averse).
Case in point,
>Many are even required to carry transparent backpacks, just in case one has a gun.
which is only in effect in the places with most of the crime (read: inner city), and the occasional suburban district where irrational risk-aversity got a foothold. Everywhere else tends to be a little bit saner and would prefer to not constantly broadcast a message of "be constantly afraid of a thing that's vanishingly rare" (which is what the backpacks are meant to symbolize), at least until irrational risk-aversity starts paying political dividends in those areas as well (or it is forced upon them by the cities if the state isn't structured in a way to keep them in check).
The transparent backpack packs are, like the metal detectors, not limited to inner cities. They show up in every district where they're afraid of mass shootings, where they also hold mass shooting drills and other precautions.
These precautions are probably not statistically necessary, since the school shootings are rare, and exaggerated by their awfulness. But the fact is that they do happen, and the response from gun manufacturers of "Oh, your kid probably won't be shot so let's do nothing at all" is equally irrational. And then you get the even more psychotic ones claiming that every instance is in fact fake.
That's my point: the guns create a persistent, low-level paranoia, because of the very low risk of a very bad thing. It is not just in the inner cities. The school shootings, when they do take place, are most often in suburbs, and no suburb is sure they won't be next. So children are confronted every day with preparing for it.
That YCombinator thread is about having your kids taken away by Child Protective Services, not being killed by guns.
The idea that Americans are on edge is simply not correct. The average American, not intending to end their own life and not engaged in a criminal career, is much, much more likely -- about 10× -- to be killed by their own or another person's car than by a gun, and American attitudes reflect that.
I think the simplest counterpoint is Britain. The US Second Amendment is a direct descendant of the British Common Law right to bear arm. And Britain is arguably our national parent with a similar culture and history and a modern pluralistic culture. They effectively ended their right to private gun ownership in the 20th century to the point that it's now extremely difficult to procure one and there are very few guns owned per capita. And their homicide rate is less than half of ours. Same goes for Australia and several other first world democracies. You can at the very least say that rate of gun ownership has no correlation with gun crime. And quite possibly that it correlates directly in that more guns leads to more gun deaths.
So, personally (subjectively), I don't find it admirable at all. Freedom is a good default option, but I see America's gun culture as pretty sickening.
One reason their homicide rate is less than half ours is that their clearance rate for murders is >90% vs around 60% in better parts of the US. This was a result of the British police adopting a standard and very effective methodology for investigating murders in the 70’s and 80’s.
There is a lot of criminological evidence that the deterrent effect of policing is proportional to the predictability of the crime being solved, rather than the harshness of the punishment.
If we want less murders, we need to put more effort into catching murderers. That is where the cause and effect relationship lies. It is also something that the British know how to do, and which we could learn from.
Britain also spent a long time transporting violent criminals and resettling much of the relatively violent “Scotch-Irish”/“Borderer” population to the American colonies. We also got a lot of their religious fanatics. This explains a lot about America.
If you're looking for ethnic explanations, the evidence deosnt match the claim that Borderers drive the American homicide rate to any real degree. While the White American murder rate is higher than Britain's, it's less than half that of the overall American murder rate, which is largely driven by the homicide rate amongst African Americans, which is 7x that of whites.
The laws are pretty old so I doubt there's reliable data. Australia has a clearer case. Firearm deaths definitely decreased after a 1996 law that pulled hundreds of thousands of weapons off the street. Rates were already decreasing before the ban but seemed to drop faster after. It wasn't a dramatic change and can't be directly attributed to the law.
I'll say this other thing though. Rates of violence aside, first world democracies that curbed gun ownership typically show better measures of development (for men and women) across the board. There was no slippery slope of lost freedom and government didn't suddenly oppress their unarmed citizens.
We are trying to get at causality here. Even in thr Australia case, I have to ask, did crimes committed by _illegally_ owned firearms decrease after the law? Much as we can productively debate who should or should not be allowed to own a firearm, I don't think there's much disagreement that there is some class of people who _shouldn't_.
I don't think it's possible to prove causality. But it stands to reason that decreasing the supply of weapons raises the price making it harder to acquire them legally or illegally. And the cost of making legal gun ownership harder seems to be minimal.
> And the idea that physically weaker people (often women) can defend themselves against the strong.
> Does this idea work? Surprisingly well.
Does it?
> 11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
> Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
> This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.
> Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.
This is like claiming people get in car accidents during every single driving trip, because accident reports fail to ever mention drivers reaching their destination safely and without incident.
Of the crimes where the victim was present, using a gun or another "weapon" led to roughly the same outcome:
> Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
There's nothing magical about guns: seems that using a baseball bat is just as effective and poses fewer risks in other regards. Hence the title: "not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions".
> The person mugging you surely realises there is a possibility you have a gun and will shoot the moment he/she thinks you are pulling a gun out.
There's a study bearing this out:
> Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
I do not at all accept that guns empower the weak. We can see all over the world they are a massive force multiplier for criminals, the violent and the murderous. Guns are only potent in the hands of those willing and able to use violence. For those unwilling to do so, they are massively disenfranchising. They essentially tilt the balance of power in society decisively in favour of those most willing to kill, and most enthusiastic about preparing to do so.
There is nothing admirable about normalising and promoting lethal violence in society. I’m very much aware of the sentiment that guns can have beneficial social effects, epitomised by the Heinlein quote that an armed society is a polite society. This is absurd. That sentiment is a direct attack on the principle of free speech, open discourse and equal right of expression for citizens. We should aspire to toleration of free expression, even if it’s uncomfortable or offensive, not suppression of it. Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to the violent? Utterly shameful.
>Speech are only potent in the hands of those willing and able to say destabilizing things. For those unwilling to do so, they are massively disenfranchising. They essentially tilt the balance of power in society decisively in favour of those most willing to do this, and most enthusiastic about preparing to do so.
It's really not that different; speech, much like guns, is capable of bringing an entire nation to its knees and setting neighbor against neighbor (every Western country is a blatant example of this, for obvious and recent reasons), to say nothing about its general life-ruining applications. Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to those that speak?
>Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to the violent?
Is it really right for the [pick your favorite minority] to do violence to the [member of society that is coming to do some nasty thing to them]?
And if so, at what point does that change?
Is it when they're about to seize your children and make sure any culture you gave them is beaten out of them?
Is it they're about to bulldoze your ancient burial grounds to make room for a new golf course?
Is it when the Grain Commissioner takes the food you needed to survive?
Is it when your neighbors have come to kill you for wearing glasses, or [insert your favorite characteristic here]?
How about just levying usurious taxes for the same crime, or enforcing the law unevenly against them, or a state-sanctioned "just let these two groups fight it out since we hate both of them anyway"?
(and the list goes on)
Once you take that implicit veto away, these abuses happen (of course, society has investigated itself and found that it has done nothing wrong). It's not a bulletproof defense, of course, and it's certainly less likely to work unless properly coordinated, but it doesn't hurt your chances. And unless you think society should get away with everything just because it's society (which is the majority view, so nobody will hold you accountable for it)...
The US is a free democracy. Nobody is coming to seize your children and beat their culture out of them. Even if they were, or planned to bulldoze your cemetery, the US has a very well trained, staffed and equipped paramilitary police system and full on militarised domestic National Guard. Largely because they are policing such a gunned up population. So thanks for that. If they are coming for your children, a few light arms are not going to stop them, and they have a huge amount of practical experience in making sure that’s true.
Widespread access to firearms simply escalates conflict in society. It escalates personal disputes, escalates interactions with law enforcement, escalates disparities in power between the violent and nonviolent.
Many developed nations, in fact almost all of them, have very low gun ownership rates, yet these abuses you seem to think would be inevitable have not happened in them. It turns out liberal democracy (liberal as in free and equal, not as in socialist) is pretty robust as long as it has solid support by the population. The best way to maintain that trust is the ability to exercise your rights and express your opinions without fear.
> Even if they were, or planned to bulldoze your cemetery, the US has a very well trained, staffed and equipped paramilitary police system and full on militarised domestic National Guard.
I don’t think gun laws make any significant difference to whether that’s likely to happen or not. Having the official recognised right to bear arms hasn’t done any oppressed minority groups in the US or anywhere else I can think of much good.
> It hands an implicit veto on opinion to the violent. Utterly shameful.
Except that isn’t how it has worked in the US at all. Can weapons be used to intimidate and coerce? Of course. But we’re civilized. We have freedoms and we are protected from unlawful force by lawful force.
Speech is virtual limitless. Non violent protest has and will continue to be a fruitful avenue of change.
Self reliance and individual empowerment are the core values of the United States. I can’t think of many things more important than being able to protect my family and my property.
My comment is not limited to political discourse. The rates of firearm use in domestic and personal disputes in the US are a disgrace. Half of women killed in domestic disputes are shot. But even then, it only shows those cases where guns were actually used. We can only guess how often the threat of such violence, either explicit or implicit is enough to coerce or intimidate. The attitude that the correct way to fix this is for women to also become killers is frankly vile. Promoting willingness to kill as a path to a voice or Liberty in personal relationships or society is utterly immoral. That is not the kind of society we should be aspiring to build.
> Promoting willingness to kill as a path to a voice or Liberty in personal relationships or society is utterly immoral. That is not the kind of society we should be aspiring to build.
Statements like this remind me how lucky we are to have created such a safe space for people to be born, raised, and live so that they can maintain this view. You’re lucky and hopefully people like you can help us build a better society.
Some of us weren’t so lucky. We experienced violence, we went to war, we have actually seen the chaos and terror that people can cause.
I am here to tell you that terrible, malevolent people exist. They don’t care about hurting other people. Now, you don’t need to spend every waking hour worrying about them, but don’t pretend that they aren’t there and a real danger to you either.
So, please stop trying to take away the right of an individual to protect themselves because of some hand waving about criminals with guns.
I have lived in developed and developing countries and have never felt that my family or property were at risk. The real question is why you think they are when we live in the safest time in human history.
Yes I'm sure the 20th century would have been much more peaceful with guns in everyone's hand. You sir have solved all political problems , just give everyone guns !
But literally nobody is proposing removing all guns from a society. Rather, even the most aggressive proposals merely confine them to government actors, usually a standing army. Confining guns to government actors means lethal violence is monopolized by the government. And there are many, many examples of how terribly that can go. Yes, if we could eliminate humanity’s ability to inflict lethal violence, the world would be a better place. We cannot do that because we’re humans.
> The idea that people should not have to give up all of their ability to fight.
If you're pro-democracy/pro-republic/pro-anything-other-than-might-makes-right why is this admirable or desirable?
Weapons are a force multiplier, and they can make a minority with extreme desire to fight very strong. A Taliban, a Castro, a Confederate States of America...
It's naive to think that guns will only ever be used by defenders of freedom. Take a look around the world.
I have trouble understanding how guns would defend an American's freedom. See, it's as if the US military trains soldiers how to hide in the Appalachian, raid local villages, and steal food and ammunition from trucks, because if a non-specified enemy conquers the US and its troops are marching down the streets from Sacramento to Boston you need these skills to hide and keep fighting.
Except that, if you're at this stage, you have failed. The whole freaking point of having a military is to not let it happen. So the US military instead trains its soldiers to fly bombers and read satellite photos, because these are the skills that make you win wars before it runs you over.
If the government has turned your enemy and its troops are marching down the street ready to murder your family, you have already failed to defend your freedom. What were you doing in the meantime?
> Except that, if you're at this stage, you have failed. The whole freaking point of having a military is to not let it happen. So the US military instead trains its soldiers to fly bombers and read satellite photos, because these are the skills that make you win wars before it runs you over.
Eh, not so much. I believe the term is "defense in depth." There's also the saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket."
If recent history has taught us anything, it's that a territory with a hostile armed population is extremely difficult for even the most advanced army in the world to hold. The US (or the Soviets) would have won in Afghanistan if all the Taliban was able to do was stage protest marches and write angry letters.
Also, you have to understand that there are many different scenarios to consider. For instance: someday, the enemy may be the US military itself.
with tanks, nukes, helicopters, and actual soldiers with automatic weapons and grenades.
It's delusional to think that you will do anything other than piss yourself if the US military "knocks" on your door. At best you will die by grenade, at worst - turned into a pancake by some tank.
How do you picture yourself winning against the strongest military in the world, with your rifle at home? Do you really think you'll join a militia, shoot at US soldiers and survive to tell the story of how you bravely defended your freedoms against a tyrannical government?
This isn't a movie where you die a hero. The ship where citizens can defend themselves with weapons against a tyrannical government has sailed a very long time ago.
> For instance: someday, the enemy may be the US military itself.
That's exactly what I mean when I say "if you let it happen then you have already failed to defend your freedom." The US military is not a band of invaders, it's made of your fellow Americans. What were you doing while it turned into your enemy?
> "What were you doing while it turned into your enemy?"
netflix and facebook apparently. my whole lifetime has been a slow-motion monopolization of power and money, and we've yet to resist/deter/reroute any of it meaningfully. power has been slowly turning against the populace, and we're not paying any attention to it. rather, we're debating distracting culture topics like abortion, racism, and even covid mandates.
This is the kind of mindset that, in a country with a lot of guns, could lead people to start taking up arms against a government that most of the population doesn't want to overthrow, a population that largely thinks here-and-now topics like abortion or the everyday effects of racism or the public health effects of COVID are more important than ideological claims about how the country is now more "against the populace" than it supposedly was 50, 100, etc, years ago.
This is not a good thing. Are you really suggesting you might use a gun to force your fellow citizens to care about the same aspects of government that you do, instead of the ones they're currently focused on? When convincing your fellow voters and elected officials fail, you believe you have a right to resort to violence?
well yes, just as humans have for our whole history. but you’ve framed it as a false dichotomy, that i mean we must revolt at any slight, but that’s a disingenuous framing. it should be a last resort, just as our government should resort last to force, whether internally or externally.
> What were you doing while it turned into your enemy?
You seem to be assuming that someone could have done something and been successful, which I think is assuming too much.
But like I said before: the key point is defense in depth. It's stupid to put all your eggs in one basket for something so important. Conventional democratic process and personal firearms are both baskets in the analogy.
> See, it's as if the US military trains soldiers how to hide in the Appalachian, raid local villages, and steal food and ammunition from trucks,
You should hang out near Fort Bragg sometime. The Special Forces train exactly as you describe.
Also of note: most of them are very unhappy with the way things are going in the US. I disagree with them frequently, but they also have some good points.
They are very upset with what they see as growing authoritarianism from the government -- particularly wrt many covid interventions. (for what it's worth, I mostly disagree but I do see signs of growing authoritarianism among many on both the left and right)
US always needs to think black and white. Either you are free to have guns, or you cannot have any guns. This is not true at all.
I'm a gun owner in Europe. First I needed to be member of a shooting range for 6 months. Then I have to pass a theoretical and practical exam. Then the people I live with have to sign that I can own guns. Plus, I need to have a clean criminal record. To keep my guns, I need to go shooting 12 times a year, and every 4 years my doctor has to approve that I'm mentally stable to keep them. There are also very strict rules on where I keep my guns an ammo, and where I can transport them.
Do I like all the effort I have to put into this? No. Do I prefer that over giving crazy and/or incompetent people guns? Yes.
What's admirable about it? This is just a fiction that you Americans tell yourselves about the next revolution.
Name one, just one way, that ease of gun ownership has protected Americans from their government in a way that citizens of other western democracies have suffered?
There is no scenario in which any citizen with a gun in any country defeats their government. Your gun will keep you safe about as well as your password protected Word document keeps you safe from the NSA snooping.
If you were an officer of the law pressed to go door-to-door to say, purely hypothetically, take the oldest child by force to inscribe them in some dystopian military program, you'd probably be a lot more hesitant if you knew that there was a chance you'd get shot in the process right?
I believe that's the security that us Americans (I imagine your sneer with that) feel by being armed.
Isn't it that the Swiss are all armed as well? They seem to have fared rather well in a 20th century Europe fraught with conflict. Tell me that's a coincidence with absolutely no correlation to their pro-gun culture.
Every authoritarian regime is a pure hypothetical until it is not. I believe that the US has not fallen to that, partly, because the population is armed to the teeth.
Swiss gun culture has nothing to do with American gun culture. Guns are for hunting and sport that's it.
Essentially no one even thinks of getting a gun for self defence. There also has never been an idea that guns are for defending yourself against your own government here.
Yet every swiss male citizen does military training and is issued a weapon to keep, to use in staying proficient.
There's no need for a military culture, when the government has already mandated it for you.
Not that it isn't popular:
>On September 22, 2013, a referendum that aimed to abolish conscription was held in Switzerland. However, the referendum failed with over 73% of the electorate voting against it, showing strong support for conscription of men in Switzerland.
Military service isn't popular at all, but the majority of people do agree that it's necessary to have a military and they don't want a professional army. So that leaves the current system.
The popular mechanism remains- there's no need to encourage a voluntary interest in military culture and therefore military readiness, when it's already a popular idea to mandate the readiness.
In the absence of that mandate, there would be a vacuum in which citizens suddenly have self-interest in promoting voluntary readiness, which is implemented culturally.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.'' ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956"
Fine. Perhaps I shouldn't have said any nation, but Afghanistan is not a modern nation state. It's a time warp back to some era 1000 years ago with poorly run government theater that only existed to keep the kleptocrats stealing from their wealthy benefactor.
Do you imagine some well armed coalition of militias in Idaho or wherever is going to be rampaging through the American countryside and declaring a new nation? I wonder if these guys hugged their rifles in their last moments: https://youtu.be/t9K0fhMCTGk?t=102 NSFW
> Name one, just one way, that ease of gun ownership has protected Americans from their government in a way that citizens of other western democracies have suffered?
1776
> There is no scenario in which any citizen with a gun in any country defeats their government. Your gun will keep you safe about as well as your password protected Word document keeps you safe from the NSA snooping.
Good thing it's not just one citizen then. Is the government going to nuke/drone all its citizens? If not, then they have to have some presence on the ground. At which point I'll take having arms vs nothing.
"Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t."
Yet US Suicide rates are comparable to those of Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada. A big higher but very very close. So I don't see how guns matter in that case. If they did matter to the actual decision of killing yourself or not, you'd see an actual correlation worldwide. Also, I'm not sure if the stats account for people buying guns just to kill themselves. Like is it only including long time owners? Otherwise I again don't see the difference between buying a gun to commit suicide vs doing it via hanging.
The message it sends is that having a gun in your house makes it more likely for you to commit suicide. But causation can just as easily be reversed, i.e. if you are suicidal you're probably more a lot more likely to acquire a gun. Would it be surprising that someone who wants to die is more likely to have something that can help him do just that?
UK: "this includes all deaths from intentional self-harm for persons aged 10 years and over and deaths caused by injury or poisoning where the intent was undetermined for those aged 15 years and over." https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
> The message it sends is that having a gun in your house makes it more likely for you to commit suicide.
Yes. It's well established in suicide research that preventing access to means and methods is an important suicide prevention measure. Which suicide prevention research have you recently read?
This argument has to be the worst out of all the anti gun arguments.
We going to ban rope next? Ban trains, since it's a bit too easy to step in front of one? Knives?
If someone wants to kill their self, there are innumerable easy ways to do so. It's even likely in most households you could hang yourself quicker than you could get to your gun, if that's really what you wanted.
Giving up the right to own a gun so that someone who wants to commit suicide is forced to use another means is such a terrible argument.
While this argument does seem to follow the science (I'd have to dig into a few studies to see the details), it doesn't address the policy question of if people should give up their right (US) to own a firearm to protect themselves on the off-chance they become suicidal. And an even deeper discussion about if we should allow some suicides. Two of three people I know who killed themselves with guns were older men slipping into dementia who didn't want to endure that and put their families through that. Seems both rational and reasonable to me, but others may differ. This is also a pretty well-known scenario - killing oneself when facing a prolonged terminal illness, and would be interesting to see how the research treats these cases.
To be fair, the third was a tragic case of a young man who's life was ruined by the justice system's enormous penalties for supplying alcohol to a minor (20 yo at college). Although, theoretically this suicide should not have been with a gun since that offense is a prohibiting felony.
Look, for better or worse I think we might be better off with just no private gun ownership, but I will tell you why I think the anti-gun part of the country is so riled up:
It’s not the murder rate itself. That doesn’t matter as much to people emotionally. They know it happens, but for the most part it is so concentrated in areas people mostly want to not think about that they ignore it. I have never heard of anyone say that they want to outlaw guns because of handgun murders in the inner cities (which is obviously a problem, obviously wrong, and obviously fucked up in its own way). I think the main reasons people want guns gone is because of school shootings. And the percentages and chances here don’t play as much of a role as the fact that most people like kids and don’t want them to get shot and that it’s not the kind of tragedy you can easily write off. When some random person is murdered by some other random person I think people assume either bad luck or bad judgement. But most people aren’t willing to accept that children could have their lives cut short and that preventing this should a top priority compared to private gun ownership.
I am sympathetic to the idea that a targeted minority or an oppressed group greatly benefits from gun ownership. If the day Zimmerman followed Martin and Martin was the one with the gun then both might well be alive or at least the person being attacked would be. Or every time a woman can fight off her domestic abuser with the help of a gun. But how do you do the cost benefit analysis on that calculation? I think it’s difficult but the majority rarely thinks of the needs of a minority. On the other hand everyone thinks about children whether they want to or not.
Lastly and slightly off topic: I am baffled by the fact that mosr police officers are pro-gun. If I was afraid for my life on my job I would want the threat at least reduced if not eliminated. Outlawing private gun ownership will reduce private gun ownership and more importantly their availability to criminals who the police might apprehend. So why would they not want to have that happen?
> There's something admirable about the idea that a government would not take away all the guns. The idea that people should not have to give up all of their ability to fight.
This is the glass half full view.
The other view is that gov. doesn’t need to care about people with guns because that long hasn’t mattered in any way. A civil war hasn’t been at stake for a century, and the gov got away with anything it really wanted without ever having to fear for physical unrest. It feels a lot like letting your kid have his plastic knife so he can wield it to you to protest your authority when times come.
‘Not having to rely on police” also means they give themselves the option to just let civilians fight it out when shit hits the fan, which doesn’t look like a great thing to me.
There are graphics like [this](https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/california-newsom-...) that make it easy to tell how statistics weigh in various constituencies. Does anyone here know of a similar graph, but for homicides by firearms? If the majority of firearm violence is indeed caused by specific hotspots across the country, then I would love to see a graphic that shows where they are and how they weigh in proportion to the rest.
I too sleep better knowing that while the gun industry is built on a graveyard of dead elementary schoolers, it’s only a few dead elementary schoolers.
If I would live in the US it's not being murdered by some random I would be worried about. It's the cops that are badly trained and because of the very high possibility of someone having a gun are incredibly trigger happy.
but not to win. You realize how ridiculous it sounds to go against the US government with rifles? It's worse than bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Sometimes I can't help but feel like most of you gun loving folks are dreaming that you're in a Hollywood movie, where you're the hero and you die in glorious battle protecting your freedoms and family. But it's ok, because at least you put up a fight and credits will roll.
The reality is that you will do nothing at best, and die at worst.
That's such a bad example. Let's just look at a few differences from Taliban:
* the government controls your money and can freeze all your accounts.
* the government controls all the imports and exports. You're not going to get massive shipments of reinforcements.
* the government has all your information, where you live, where your parents live, how many kids you have, and who your friends are
* the government controls all the roads, toll booths and CC cameras. Where you're going to hide? At Yosemite? Are you going to burrow yourself in the ground and dig networks of tunnels?
You've been spoon fed this story of a militia since you were little. It's not the 1800s anymore. You can't take a gun and multiply it by 10000, and then walk into DC from Nebraska to take your freedoms back. That's a dream.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, there's school shootings, mass murders at a scale that's not found in any other country... but it's a small price to pay, because one day you'll get to play out that militia fantasy of yours, right?
> you might guess that people would be dropping like flies. But the U.S. murder rate is not all that remarkable, really. Murder is not a major concern outside of a handful of dangerous areas.
In the US. But look at the effect it has on your neighbours. The most violent and dangerous countries in the world are in Central America, and that is a direct result of the US being awash with guns.
I’m not a gun owner, and not interested in being a gun owner. I have shot guns, and it was fun, but I already have more hobbies than I have time. I’m a city kid, so I don’t really have a need for guns as tools the way country people do.
Guns as a political issue are great for getting the base riled up. But they really aren’t that important in the big picture, either for the liberals that want to get rid of them or for the conservatives that want to keep them. We all have a lot bigger fish to fry.
There is nothing admirable about it . If the military actually turns against its civilians then the civilians stand no chance despite whatever guns they own. All it does is increase the total violence in American society and all the neighbouring countries
They didn't defeat the us military lol , there was just no political will to continue a war on the other side of the world with no real value to the American establishment. But in your scenario where the American establishment goes rogue and decides to launch a punitive campaign against its own population that won't be a problem
The US fought a war of attrition for 20 years and finally withdrew, their enemy being in a better position than before the invasion. You wouldn't call that a defeat?
Why exactly do you think that a better armed and much larger force, one that is the economic backing of the military they'd be facing, would stand less of a chance?
Politicians ran on the promise of getting the troops out of Afghanistan. They chose to leave , the Taliban didn't force them to. You're imagining a situation where the government is choosing to bully the population into submission. There are tools far more powerful than guns that they have at their disposal. Cutting off food / water / electricity / internet is a far easier way to threaten a population than attack them with guns. Likewise the real complex work of standing up to authoritarianism requires organization , thought and planning more so than just guns. Your idea of a militia standing up to a government is essentially historical cosplay.
> Your idea of a militia standing up to a government is essentially historical cosplay.
I'm not saying it is going to happen, I'm only saying it can happen with an armed population, and cannot happen without an rmed population.
"Political will" is something that happens in populations, not a leadership class. The US chose to end a war of attrition because they lost. Plain and simple.
In the event of some domestic problem going that far there would be basically no political will to continue military action, and if the government continued without that it would quickly be viewed as illegitimate, lead to instability and a larger uprising.
I agree with most of your post. One small quibble though:
> There's something admirable about the idea that a government would not take away all the guns.
The whole point is that the government Can Not take away guns, not that they "would not". Inalienable rights preceed government, they are not granted by it. In fact, the government is supposed to exist to safe guard them.
I think that's an important philosophical point that a lot of people, especially the anti-gun type, lose sight of. Not suggesting you're in that camp, but I think the distinction is important.
> Inalienable rights preceed government, they are not granted by it.
That's a nice ideal, but in reality governments can do and take away whatever they want, and a guarantee that they won't take away your "inalienable" rights is only as good as the system built around that government, and the willingness of its people to fight (physically or legally) for their rights.
Too true. The real problem here, in my humble opinion, is that the mechanism by which the citizens of the United States can fundamentally alter the government (via constitutional amendment) require sizable majorities and broad consensus (I realize that this is primarily a feature), while the mechanism by which the the United States government can alter fundamentally alter itself (via the extra-constitutional mechanism we call Judicial Review) requires a simple majority of 5/9 unelected "justices". We've seen this mechanism, over the course of ~230 years, bootstrap a pathetically weak federal government into a unitary behemoth which dominates our state and local governments. And the only way to get off the train is violent revolution! It's like a bad joke.
We need to acknowledge that human beings have a right to self-governance, that this includes the right to form new governments via democratic referenda, and that governments that prevent this are engaged in something which, upon inspection, cannot be distinguished from imperialism.
The right to freedom of speech in the US is almost truly uninhibited. Even the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument was actually revisited by the Supreme Court and thrown out.
If there's an amendment to the constitution to ban owning a firearm, so be it. But if that right is severely limited without an amendment, it would be natural to fear for the rest. The verbiage on the first 10 amendments is incredibly simple. "shall not be infringed".
There is often a disconnect between what is the constitution/the law, and what the people in power actually order their cops/soldiers to do.
The constitution of the USSR guaranteed the privacy of citizens' communications, freedom of religion, and doesn't just allow citizens to criticize public organizations but prohibits persecution of critics. You know what happened in reality.
The US is by no means immune to that - we've seen last year that the President can easily send some of the millions of armed people he has under his direct control to crack down on protests and disappear some people -- while the constitutional legitimacy gets debated months later once the damage is done...
>The whole point is that the government Can Not take away guns, not that they "would not". Inalienable rights preceed government, they are not granted by it. In fact, the government is supposed to exist to safe guard them.
The National Firearms Act would like to have a word it is unconstitutional on it's face despite what the Supreme Court says. 'Shall not be infringed' hasn't been the law of the land since the 1930's.
Maybe we'll get lucky and this conservative supreme court will do one big thing right and declare all federal firearms regulations null and void thus ending this culture war and forcing the politicians to fix actual problems. However, that is highly unlikely.
Genuine legal interpretation question: Why does everyone quote "Shall not be infringed" but ignore "Well-regulated"?
If the goal is a "well regulated militia", and therefore gun rights "shall not be infringed", why do we interpret that as "everybody should have largely unfettered access to weapons" rather than "If part of a well-regulated armed force, access to weapons should be allowed during militia activities"? or something similar.
The US Supreme Court held "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."[1]
I'd argue that's a result of the historic usage that has persisted, partly because it's compatible, but only in context.
A steam regulator supplies steam from the boiler to the piston/traction, at the desired controlled rate.
It does it via a restrictive valve, but even that's a stretch for it to be considered primarily a retarding device, and not an enabling/ accelerating one.
We don't call a cars gas pedal a deccelerator or fuel-regulator, we call it the gas, or accelerator.
The consistent usage is as a definition of supply.
Is this really the case, that regulated was equivalent to supplied in that context? I don't think it matters in the slightest for the purpose of the second amendment because the militia has no bearing on the power of the government to infringe the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, no matter how well restricted or well supplied it is.
> We don't call a cars gas pedal a deccelerator or fuel-regulator,
The pedal is not the mechanism, that is the throttle (aka fuel / air regulating device, it regulates flow by throttling it). There's people who call the gas peddle the throttle too, although less common. I don't think any of this proves a point about the word regulated in the constitution though.
It's relevant because the 2nd amendment calls for the militia to be well-regulated, (not the arms themselves, or the people), and then goes further, specifically saying the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
And it does so by declaring the well-regulated militia being necessary.
Reading it all consistently, it's consistent with "enabling" and "supplying". There are no other words that even suggest there being a limitation on any party except the federal government.
All other rights in the first 10 amendments are granting rights to the people or states, and restricting the federal government, with any exceptions explicitly stated and conditioned.
Reading "well-regulated" as an open ended grant of authority to the federal government is entirely inconsistent. Especially if that authority is contradicted in the second half of the statement.
Reading "well-regulated" to mean "supply" and "enable" resolves all these inconsistencies and internal contradiction.
If you can read it in a way that makes consistent sense, then that's the way it should be read.
I just don't think the nature of the militia (or even the militia itself really) is particularly important for the second amendment.
The second amendment clearly states that the government does not have the power to infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, and that would be true no matter how you changed the militia clause.
"A rag tag posse of unarmed thugs being unhelpful to the functioning of a monarchy, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This places the exact same prohibition on the government's power to infringe the right to bear arms.
>that would be true no matter how you changed the militia clause.
Right- but that's exactly the point, and why reading it differently is critical.
>A rag tag posse of unarmed thugs
First- the term "militia" also had different meaning back then, and legally, still does, in US law.
It means every "able bodied male". That's it. (It's either the first or very near the first thing codified in US statutes as military law.)
Today, what we call militia is actually organized or semi-organized militia (or even national guard), which is legally and conceptually different.
Think "minutemen" and not "gang".
So it makes even more sense that "regulated" doesn't mean 'control of gangs', but the supplying/enabling of responsible citizen minutemen, implying everyone has some responsibly of military readiness in a free-country.
In that context (and the original desire to not keep a standing army), "limiting" that individual readiness is in direct conflict with the stated intent/benefit.
Which is not to conflate it as the reason individuals have a right to bear arms, but that the right to bear arms is complementary to individual citizens having some level of duty-to-country, to be ready to defend it, if and when called upon to.
If anything, it implies citizens should be armed and that the government can and should enable it, as an enumerated function of government.
Which doesn't imply any authority to control or otherwise restrict an individuals right to bear arms, with the narrow exception of when fulfilling one's role as activated militia, and even then only because of the nature of being subject to chain-of-command.
The two relevant decisions changed no facts on the ground outside of D.C. and Illinois. Reversal won't change anything except maybe the facts on the ground in Illinois, and will further inflame the divisions in the country.
Although you should double check your assertions, some of the details of the decisions were not 5-4.
"I'm out of town this weekend, you can use my apartment" does not grant somebody unlimited permission to use your apartment. The supreme court is working backwards from their conclusion here.
"Guns are good for hunting. All citizens have the right to own and use guns." does not mean only hunters have permission to have guns, nor that people may guns for hunting.
> Why does everyone quote "Shall not be infringed" but ignore "Well-regulated"?
Because the former is pretty clear and unambiguous, and it is the part that actually describes the limitation of the power of the government.
You can quibble over the meaning of well regulated militia and whether or not it is necessary for the security of a free state then or now, but that is clearly separate from the prohibition on infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
It does not state if a militia is necessary then people the right to bear arms. It does not state that people who are members of a militia have the right to keep and bear arms. It says all people have that right.
Here's something to think about -- Why do people think hunting or personal protection have anything to do with the second amendment?
EDIT: I'll give my answer to my own question, because it might be too ambiguous or obscure. It's actually not that I believe the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection, actually the opposite. Those were such obvious things for people to use guns for that back then they did not even have to be listed. That obviousness is why those things still come up today in discussion about the second amendment despite being enumerated nowhere. It would have been utterly absurd when the document was written that people should not use their guns for hunting or self defense. Clearly statement about the militia in there had no intention of the restriction of the right to have and use guns.
I also believe the security of a free state begins (and more or less ends) with the security of the free man so I think guns are a very important tool for self sufficiency, but that's another story.
It's because there are well established ways to interpret "militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" that draw on institutions and approaches that had been in place for hundreds of years by the time the 2nd Amendment was written. We are not actually ignoring the "well-regulated" part. The amendment enables the militia, it doesn't define it. It is for other laws and institutions to actually sort out how militias work (the Militia Acts of the 1790s, groups like the https://www.missourimilitia.com and so on). You can't have a militia without private ownership of and relatively free and easy access to weapons.
Today, we use "militia" to mean any unofficial group of armed people, but the common law militia was and is (it is still part of the laws of the USA, see 10 USC § 246) something more specific. The idea is that every potential lawful combatant -- every free man neither too old nor too young to fight -- could be summoned and they would supply their own weapon, clothing, and other supplies. The authorities did not expect to have to supply these things; people were supposed to have them already; and these people were not professional soldiers, with security clearances, government jobs or something like that. They were just regular citizens.
Now, what if they tried to make some kind of law like, only people officially registered in the militia can have guns? This creates a tremendous enforcement burden and does not serve much purpose, because militia membership is supposed to be something that's extremely widespread and so guns would be all over the place. Such a rule would have run-up against another factor, which is that many people who might have been technically too old or too young, or even not eligible at any age because they were women, would still have other reasons that were perfectly reasonable for using guns -- like hunting and shooting pests around the farm. If you see a non-eligible person with a gun, it does not necessarily mean anything; maybe the gun is their dad's or their husband's or their son's; hard to say. It's not really sensible that someone in the same house, and sort of the same legal person due to coveture (the merging of a woman's legal personhood with that of her husband), could not use or put hands on the gun. Enforcing any provision like this would have been extremely tedious and involved, given that the militia relied on people storing and maintaining weapons in their homes. It would, I think, result in something that everyone familiar with the Anglo-American legal tradition, in those times and in ours, would recognize as government overreach.
In fact, the situation was that people had arms for many purposes in England and the colonies, not just for militia purposes, and this was a social institution that went back to at least the 900s in England. The militia as an institution relied on the institution of private weapon ownership, but private weapons ownership was independent of the militia, and people treated weapons like any other article of private property -- they were free to modify them, sell them, and assign them in their wills.
That's why we interpret the amendment the way that we do: in order to have a functioning militia, people need to have weapons and be familiar with them. The militia relied on a prevalent social institution of private weapon ownership: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The 2nd Amendment says, more or less, that obstructing private ownership of, commerce in and training with weapons would undermine the militia, and so such obstruction is prohibited.
It's been shown that many people would side with democrats on the majority of social issues and vote for them if not for their stance on firearms. If the democrats lost their ability to use that as part of their culture war platform they'd likely gain a ton of people who don't vote or vote R simply to retain their rights.
You can't reduce the culture war to gun ownership. The Dems are doing just about everything they can to alienate traditionalists in the U.S., including gun owners. It's not even the most important wedge issue anymore. Rather, gun owners are concerned about defending themselves in a country organized by Democratic party policy. They'll need the guns when the police are defunded, or when the social workers come for their children.
Yes. Child Protective Services are used as a weapon against non-traditional families here. I grew up in a house with 9 younger siblings, it was crazy, messy, and there were sheep grazing in the front yard. No abuse or drug use, my parents barely drink, and generally a very happy family.
CPS was called on us, and we all gathered outside, I believe I was 16 at the time. The nice social worker lady started asking us some questions about if we were treated well, et cetera, and I ended up getting pretty angry, and explaining to her that I really needed to get back to the college class she had pulled me out of, and then had to take my car—which I'd bought doing some software development work on the side—to the shop, and if asking she could please leave so I could go back to being a productive person.
Thankfully, I was ahead of my age, and able to beat her over the head with it, but she was looking for literally any reason to make me a ward of the state. This is more than a real fear, this is a huge problem.
I don't know about fear, though it's certainly a concern. I have had police and social workers come to my home, and to my child's school, because I let her walk to the park alone. The park was less than 100 meters from my home.
In my own childhood--an objectively more dangerous time--I explored an area of over 100 square kilometers, unsupervised and with no means of phoning home, yet suffered no problems more serious than a skinned knee.
Well, I can't say they will actually take up arms against social workers but it is a fear. Many parents fear the current trends from parental authority over children to state authority over children. If you don't see that trend, you're not paying attention. There are many parents who feel they have reason to fear home-schooling will be outlawed. There are parents who fear that children are being given instruction or choices at school that parents are not privy to and that would traditionally have required parental consent and might be considered brainwashing by some parents. Some parents fear that the this is the tip of the spear and believe they would do anything to protect their children from being harmed as they conceive of harm.
“ There are parents who fear that children are being given instruction or choices at school that parents are not privy to and that would traditionally have required parental consent”
Real enough that Utah passed a law to deal with it (i.e. "no, the state is not going to be used to abduct your children while they're walking home from the park, no matter how many times Karen calls us about uNsUpErViSeD cHiLdReN").
Is it that far-fetched to be wary of concern trolls given that the state allows itself to be used as their weapon?
I'm not surprised by that but that's just private exploitation. I mean the industries that have grown like a cancer on state and federal government. They have found it is very profitable to medicalize, sexualize, indoctrinate, and otherwise commercialize children. The only thing standing in the way are those pesky parents who want to protect them. The obvious strategy is to use their power to promote laws that give the state more authority over children or to give impressionable children more autonomy from their parents. The state acting in loco parentis implements the marketplace these industries profit within.
To get back to your example, there is a disturbing overrepresentation if pedophiles aiding and abetting this process. I guess they are opportunistic and see only benefits for themselves.
This is silly, because Gun laws are a central part of the platform and can't be abandoned.
This is like saying if Republicans just dropped anti-immigration from their platform they'd gain a ton of people who don't vote for them because they're Mexican.
Any move like this fundamentally alienates the base.
What keeps a party's platform from changing? Would former republicans vote democrat if the republican party dropped its anti-immigration stance? Surely not, as there is still abortion, taxes, guns, etc.
When the Supreme Court "ended the culture war" about abortion with Roe did it result in the right wing giving up and deciding to get other things done? Or did it get turned into a core issue for recruiting generations of Republicans to overturn it?
The Bill of Rights cannot be. This is the fundamental difference between the US and other Western democracies. Consent to be governed rests upon said government respecting those inalienable rights that we have. Those rights are not granted us by the government, they are the rights that we created a government to preserve. Any government violating those rights no longer has the consent of the governed and should be abolished.
Sure it can. The "Bill of Rights" is just a term for the first ten amendments. The 21st Amendment reads:
"Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."
Nothing in the Constitution forbids doing the same to the First, Second, or any other, should enough Americans agree on the point.
The 28th Amendment could read "The President shall be selected by the Prime Minister of Canada, and all redheads shall be put to death" and it'd not only be the law of the land once ratified, but there'd be no legal recourse except another amendment. Even more fun; include a "The Constitution may no longer be amended" as an additional provision.
(Of course, you have to get that through the amendment process, which is fairly obviously unlikely.)
Ah, well, you've gone down a philosophical path on the role of government.
Strictly mechanically speaking, the constitution can be amended by a certain majority of voting in a national campaign, and those amendments can override any other amendment as the voters see fit.
That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution. Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states.
You're essentially saying that if the majority of the country votes to change one of the rights, then what? You'll no longer recognize the government as real?
Take that argument to an extreme. If the majority of the country votes to suspend democracy, would you stick around? If not, then doesn't that imply that there exists a set of underlying principles that you believe are fundamental to a government? That's exactly what the Bill of Rights is, an enumeration of what were viewed as the fundamental rights for which the point of government is to preserve.
The mistake so many people make is thinking that government is the lowest level. It is not, government is downstream of culture and is a reflection of that cultures values. Without a unified culture that agrees on certain prerequisits of government, for example from this case elected representation, there can be no functional government.
That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution.
Which were the price the Antifederalists demanded to accept the Constitution as a whole.
Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states.
Supermajority, and only after a supermajority of the Congress starts the process or a supermajority of states calls for a constitutional convention. Even then, abrogating any of the Bill of Rights also abrogates the original deal, making the rest of the Constitution and its additional amendments null and void.
Can you justify or defend your argument in your last sentence? Because I think it's not only wrong, but clearly wrong.
In particular, other amendments have changed part of the text of the original Constitution. How does that not also "abrogate the original deal, making the Constitution null and void"? That argument should apply even more if we're talking about the body rather than the first 10 amendments, shouldn't it? Why do you single out the Bill of Rights as being unchangeable?
I can fathom why it's called the Bill of Rights. Yes, you made a claim. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim. Dismissive snark about what I'm able to fathom is not the same thing.
I also made an argument in my previous post. You completely ignored it. Would you answer it?
Well, if the new Texas anti-abortion law is declared legal and constitutional in the courts, there's going to be a lot more laws that deny people their constitutional rights via similar "bounty hunter" systems. And the fact that it wasn't declared unconstitutional right off the bat makes the "can not" part not apply that well since Texas can currently very much take away constitutional rights from its citizens.
Also, the "inalienable rights" in 1776 were not really inalienable since life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were afforded to a pretty select group of people.
> The idea that people should not have to give up all of their ability to fight.
Fight...whom? How? A gun is a very blunt instrument. If you want to learn how to defend yourself, take a self-defense class and buy something non-lethal like mace.
Because "in case of emergency, press button" works when issued from the hands of a 5' 110-pound woman against a 7' 250-pound man in a way that the other options simply do not.
Every time I read the story of gun violence in American school it send chills down my spine. As a parent you don't want to worry about shootouts at your kid's school. And this is totally preventable if Government bans guns.
I understand the idea that citizens need protection from government. But if fight really breaks out between government and citizens then there are weapons far powerful then guns that citizens don't have.
The whole gun debate is only happening because there are strong gun lobbyist in Washington. Gun manufactures makes sure that they can sell guns and make profit.
In unequal power situations, guns are mighty useful. A world where no one needs firearms is a nice ideal, but unfortunately we don't live in that world. The police cannot be trusted to show up anywhere in time to defend you, and in fact might shoot you instead of whoever is attacking you anyway.
Are many firearm proponents ideologically crazy and/or reckless? Unfortunately Yes. Does this have negative societal consequences? Yes. Should we work towards a world where no one feels the need to own a firearm for self defence? Absolutely.
But saying that firearms "are not the way to do anything" is just denying reality.
You need to have the big "I consider America the world" disclaimer at the top.
A world where a regular person in their everyday life do not need firearms exists all over the world. Are you the police? are you the military? and if so are you currently working? If not then you do not need a gun.
The police all over the world do show up when needed, and the don't shoot people unless it is a complete last resort. In the very rare case you are a person that is being attacked, they're even trained so well they don't shoot the person attacking you and can deal with it in better ways.
The only thing firearms help an average person do is compete in a shooting competition. Take a look at the rest of the developed world and realise that your thoughts on this only apply to one country.
Whenever I hear about how the rest of the world doesn't need guns I always think of the Mexican avacado farmers who used (highly illegal) guns to protect their farms from cartels because the government can't protect them.
Always funny when a European corrects an American that the rest of the world is not America, as it is obviously Paris.
Useless unless you also have the right to bear them into potential death traps like a theater.
Very needed when like in Bataclan the authorities take a secure the parameter and wait approach, like for Columbine and the Pulse a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida massacres. Or when the closest authorities cower in fear as in the Stoneman high school shooting (that was addressed by police units from further away).
> A world where a regular person in their everyday life do not need firearms exists all over the world. Are you the police? are you the military? and if so are you currently working? If not then you do not need a gun.
Someone upthread made a good point: a regular person in their everyday life does not need a fire extinguisher. Most people go their whole lives without ever using one.
Several months ago I listened to a story about Myanmar on (I think) NPR's The World. After the coup and after the military started shooting protesters, many urban pro-democracy activists sensibly realized that nonviolent action wasn't going to work, and headed out of the city to get trained by some ethic rebel groups in the countryside.
However, when they were done with their training they had to do back home unarmed. Myanmar has strict gun control, and the rebels didn't have any guns to spare.
So, in summary: you don't need a gun until you do.
I agree with the OP, but I am not in America. Sadly, my nation definitely wouldn’t be considered a developed country (we are in the 60s or 70s by GDP).
So maybe instead of the OPs thoughts only applying the one country, maybe your thoughts only apply to one continent: Europe?
Now with respect to the article, my sisters are very interested in gun ownership because in their own words “no one needs guns just to protect against robberies”. And I agree, for peace of mind when it comes to bodily safety it’s better to trust yourself instead of being forced to trust crime statistics and police response times.
To correct one fallacy, brandishing a gun is largely unnecessary. If you brandish, you might as well use. However, knowing that you are armed can give you the courage and confidence that puts off attackers. For the most part these guys are opportunistic, and only escalate when they are sure someone is defenseless.
I've seen enough videos of the unarmed British police getting their ass handed to them by crazy Somali's with nothign but a knife to realize that yes, the police need guns.
Funny because your link directly contradicts the version of events you put forward. Not only was he killed before the police arrived but the two attackers were shot by armed police very shortly after the regular police arrived and prevented any other mayhem. AND a whole bunch of unarmed regular people intervened as well.
> Not only was he killed before the police arrived
I don't know if that can be proven. He never had a medical assessment that established that at the time, and everyone involved would have had incentive to say he was already dead to avoid initiating a confrontation with the armed attackers.
Okay he was attacked and left for dead by the attackers (although the bystanders who helped said he was dead at that point after the fact) who didn't further attack him before the police arrived or after they arrived. It doesn't make your version any less completely counter-factual because no police were there when Lee was attacked and they did in fact later successfully intervene to stop them doing anything further.
Women have been fighting for representation in government, pay equality, education equality. None of those are helped by owning a gun. How many women have had their access to personal development opportunities restricted by their inability to apply deadly force? I'm guessing it's a trivially small number.
It makes it a lot more expensive, shall I say, for the opposing side to rid themselves of such turbulent agitators.
There's memorials to people who were killed during the Civil Rights era; there's not very many names on them, around 33 for the first I heard of, 41 for the SPLC's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Memorial and it includes a number that aren't relevant to my point. One reason for this is because a lot of them including Eleanor Roosevelt were armed.
Somehow I never read news about "rapist shot dead by attacked woman". Are you positive that buying more firearms will make it happen? Because it definitely doesn't look we're there yet.
"Police: Woman shoots, kills man peeping into her bedroom window"
Maybe she could have just called the police? Or take a picture of him and post on NextDoor, which is what happens in our neighborhood. Of course, it always turns out to be a misunderstanding; the Amazon delivery guy trying to figure out if someone's home so they can leave a package. But at least they are just publicly shamed on the web instead of dead from a gunshot wound.
The article is short on details but it's possible she did call the police. Other articles explored the possibility the woman knew the man, which would bolster a claim of self defense (a stalker, abusive ex-lover, etc)
It's also possible that she's tried that in the past, but given that the guy would be watching her as she does it, it may not be super practical to expect him to wait around for the police to arrive.
And I don't know how many times the police have to be called for this only to show up and find nothing before they stop promptly sending an officer for new reports.
It happens but even the six stores a month in American Rifleman aren't statistically significant, when compared to the number of "bad person kills less bad/good person" numbers or "accidental shooting death" numbers.
> in 2020, there have been unintentional shootings by over 220 children. This has resulted in 92 deaths and 135 injuries
> Kristen McMains, a 25-year-old lawyer in Louisville, Kentucky, first became suspicious that John Ganobcik was stalking her when she traversed the skywalk connecting her office building to the parking garage across the street. She felt her fears were confirmed when she boarded an elevator and the suspicious man followed -- but did not press a button. When the doors opened on the fourth level of the parking garage, she bolted for her car, and Ganobcik sprinted after her.
> Before McMains could get in her car, her attacker caught up, slammed her head, and jabbed at her with an eight-inch rusty serrated knife. He forced her into the passenger seat and said, “We’re going.” Fearing rape and murder, McMains fought viciously to escape, tearing off all 10 of her fingernails in the struggle, but she was unable to escape. Desperate, she told Ganobcik that she had just cashed a check and could offer him money. When she reached for her purse, instead of money, she pulled out the .32 Beretta Tomcat her father had bought for her.
> At first, it failed to fire, but McMains kept pulling the trigger and ultimately she shot Ganobcik in the neck and the buttocks. He fled, and a passerby called 911. Eventually, Ganobcik pled guilty to robbery and attempted kidnapping, receiving a 15-year prison sentence. McMains’ use of force was immediately recognized as justified.
In most incidents where people use firearms to protect themselves no shots are fired, just brandishing the weapon is enough. Those incidents don't make the news.
Buy if you're looking for an actual news story, here's one.
The comment is probably not meant this way, but brandishing has connotations of anger, excitement, or intimidation.
I would caution one not to do this as it may be illegal in your jurisdiction. Only draw a firearm with the intent to use it, not with the intent to intimidate. Certainly, the intent to use it may have a side effect of intimidating an aggressor — I don’t dispute that.
You don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. The law recognizes this. If you pull the gun with justified intent, and you end up not having to use it, that's just a happy circumstance. This has happened to me.
They do exist, but Youtube's algo won't suggest them unless that is something you are already interested in. I find videos almost weekly of store owners and individuals defending themselves. The people that have training and experience with their tools are usually able to successfully fend off the attackers.
There dozens of defensive uses of firearms daily. Many don’t result in shooting and even when they do they rarely make local news and certainly not beyond. There are a few sources that are trying to catalog these events I’ll try to snag one when I’m not on mobile. I’ve had to use a firearm before and it was never reported because no one got shot.
There is a plethora of research and data attempting to estimate how many crimes are stopped/deterred beforehand merely by the presence of a firearm by the victim. None of these estimates are small.
Research questioning prisoners why they don't commit home invasions list the presence of firearms in the home as the number one reason. My state has very few home invasions and nearly all of them are drug/gang related.
If an attacker is stopped before it happens, we don't really know if it would have been a rape or a mugging or an assault.
Don't take my post as fact, please research this and come up with your own opinion. Let it simmer a bit in your mind. You can call me crazy later, just let it percolate for a little bit first!
Here are my thoughts (or hypotheses, if you will):
Guns are a very political topic. There are narratives in place on both sides of the aisle. Most news is reported in service to the narratives that outlet supports.
Do the news sources you consume ever tell you about about defensive gun usage? In any context? These stories aren't hard to find if you look for them.
I thought that too, then I saw LA police slowly drive past a trans woman screaming for help to flag them down as her and her friends were getting mugged, which lead later to assault. There's video evidence since the mugger was on insta live and recording it to get clout, then a friend assaulted another trans woman on as their friends laughed at her. That logic works if you can trust the police to do the bare minimum.
With video evidence, and the assailants live-streaming repeatedly after from their apartments bragging about the assault, trying to hype up their rap career. It took weeks to get the police to do anything about it, where they would tell the women that they had no leads despite the livestreams.
If someone I'm with or myself is allowed to have a gun I prefer it.
Police will never protect you. If you want to be able to defend yourself and your family either be rich enough to have private security or train to use a gun, if you have the right. Many of our offices are guarded by guys with guns and many of the anti-gun advocates you see on TV have bodyguards with guns.
I sincerely wish they were not necessary. However we live in a world where people are attacked, raped, and murdered with enough frequency that owning a gun to defend yourself is reasonable.
People around the world are living in places where guns are not used as a solution to crime. There are many in fact that view guns as more of a problem than a solution.
Nice job not answering the question. If you're being raped or mugged, would you rather A) wait until it's over to call the police who may or may not do anything or B) defend yourself with a gun before you are raped or mugged? There is a third answer C) have physical/martial training to fight your way out of it, but never bring a fist to a gun or knife fight.
A gun is not a "solution to crime" as you said. In the hands of a potential victim, it is a "preventative from the crime ever happening".
I can see why anti-rape self-defense is a popular rhetoric as gun ownership has indeed prevented crimes, and not being raped is a very good thing. Unfortunately, it's also used often as an emotional sales tactic, causing people who shouldn't be in possession of a gun to be in possession of one, resulting in unnecessary injury and death.
Coupled with the fact that even if you arm every single person capable with a gun, there's still going to be crime, you have to consider a balance. Some countries are doing very well without them.
causing people who shouldn't be in possession of a gun to be in possession of one, resulting in unnecessary injury and death.
Figures on injuries are iffy in the US, for example the degree involved, but death is binary and since 1980 accidental deaths from firearms have gone from 800 to 500 a year, at the same time both the number of people in the US have increased by 50% and percentage armed have increased by even more. The latter probably due to the nationwide sweep of "shall issue" or better concealed carry regimes in states, now covering 42 states and ~75% of the nation's people.
One of the reasons this is a red hot issue it that it's the only failure of the Left's in its culture war on the Right, and it's a very big failure.
I leave thousands of dollars of firearms out on a bench feet behind me at the shooting range every time I go. So do countless other shooters. I've never personally witnessed a crime at a shooting range or even read of one. Why do you think that is if not for the 100% guarantee that everyone is armed at the range?
Meanwhile a local elementary school is shot up… or a cinema… or a place of worship… or a high school… or another high school… or a concert…
If only those toddlers had firearms. Or those concert goers who were fired upon from 100s of yards away from an elevated position.
These things ONLY happen where guns are not controlled properly. Surely even if you believe in your 2nd amendment rights, you can see that there is a heavy price to pay to have that right. Pretending there isn’t is denying reality. Also pretending that right would stand a chance against the US military moving against the government or people is laughable. But logic is out the window on this topic… no one is going to change anyone’s mind here.
Do you have a right to defend yourself when your life is threatened and fleeing is not an option? If so, then why should your physical stature limit you?
Doesn't 'strict control' imply that few legally detain guns?
Gender Inequality Index:
#1 (best nation) is Switzerland. This country is shock-full of firearms, there is an assault rifle in many (most?) homes (a weird way to 'control', in my opinion).
#2 is Norway, where 9% of the population legally owns 1.3 million guns (population: 5.4 million)
Switzerland's famous assault rifles are not kept with ammunition, and are mostly useless. (I suppose you could bludgeon a home invader with one.) Firearms are more heavily regulated there than in most of Europe.
"He shakes out the gun holster. "And we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007."
As far as I know and saw in Switzerland the army doesn't give ammo anymore to militiamen (maybe because some over-used it, or maybe due to long-term storage issues) but they are able to buy it, and many do.
Moreover there is a mandatory training programme (a few weeks each year), including shooting exercises. Security-related matters aren't neglected, lowering the accident rates.
After his term a militiamen can buy the army-delivered weapon, and quite a few do so. This is financially clever as most on-duty militiamen take care of the gun (thinking he will buy it) and it reduces its cost for the community as he buys it, along as for him thanks to the massive buying programs of the army.
Many, even among non-militiamen, are hunters or shooters (as a hobby) and a fair fraction of them reload used ammunition.
In Switzerland a prominent argument (maybe the most prominent) of people willing to ban weapons is the amount of suicides by firearms. However suicide rates in heavily-armed Switzerland are at worst equal to those of not-heavily-armed nations such as the UK, Germany and France ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r... )
As a related note: most firearm-related death rates are established while integrating suicides: in the US the apparent (and widely publicized) ratio of firearm-related death for 1e5 people in 2017 was 11.67, however suicides form 7.32 of it (4.46 being homicides).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
IMHO the Swiss context differs from the US one because the militia is the core of the defensive system, each citizen has to be involved and the local culture integrates it. Even more significantly the Swiss society isn't under lasting and major murder-triggering major pressure (ethnic tensions, extreme poverty...).
Gun ownership doesn't put a stable society into jeopardy, and disarming haters won't transmogrify them into tolerant citizens.
> In Switzerland a prominent argument (maybe the most prominent) of people willing to ban weapons is the amount of suicides by firearms. However suicide rates in heavily-armed Switzerland are at worst equal to those of not-heavily-armed nations such as the UK, Germany and France ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r... )
A note of gentle caution: you can't compare suicide rates across countries because there are big differences in methods of counting deaths.
Question I've never been able to get an answer to, although I haven't tried hard: is it illegal to keep your own supply of ammo for the rifle?
Possibly confounding issue: with the new SIG 550 the ammo was changed to use lead free primers, just like the GP 11 1911 ammo was changed to use non-corrosive primers far ahead of other nations (in the US, our first example was for the WWII M1 carbine). I wonder if the Army discovered those primers didn't last as long as projected....
TL,DR: Swiss law is different than U.S. law, and it's hard to generalize as each is more or less permissive given different areas (and the U.S. is really 51 or 52 little countries in most senses, as Switzerland is divided into Cantons).
TL,DR: One can buy ammo freely at ranges and with minimal permitting to take home. It sounds like maybe the Army wanted ammo stored centrally such that it would be in controlled environmental conditions, and not lost or accidentally used up at a Schützenfest.
Gun control is pretty strict in Finland. In order to get a permit, you need to show that you need a gun for your hobby or your work and that you can handle it safely. (Self-defense is not considered a valid reason for a permit.) The permit can later be revoked if the original reason is no longer valid. Gun ownership is still quite high, because Finland is a sparsely populated country where hunting has always been popular.
Ironically Switzerland is #1 on that list — a country with one of the most liberal policies on firearm ownership. This video shows what a typical store in Switzerland is like and what is available for purchase https://youtu.be/UOErri-3Z5E?t=538.
Strange take. In 40+ years, I've never needed a gun to defend myself. Nor do I even _know anyone_ that needed to use a gun to lawfully defend themselves.
So why should we all have something that A) the lawful uses of such are exceedingly rare, and B) ends up involved in a lot of unlawful or unintentional killings.
To begin with you're creating a premise that the only reason gun legality can be justified is self defense, particularly against other people.
I do not accept this premise. There are many other premises for gun legality.
That said, when I was very young my grandfather had to shoot a number of stray dogs out his car window while driving through a rough pasture because they'd killed a couple calves and were attacking his cows. Some tried to bite the vehicles tires after the first shots. Gun used was a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. I didn't witness, but saw pictures, possibly originally taken for insurance purposes.
He was not, under a very strict definition, defending himself. But it still seems very unproblematic to me.
In many ways being adult enough to vote is synonymous with being adult enough to own a gun safely: the ballot box is as capable as any gun of unleashing horrors on the world.
> you're creating a premise that the only reason gun legality can be justified is self defense
What other premise is there, when we're talking about a device that is designed to seriously injure and kill others? It's either a defensive weapon, or, worse, an offensive one.
I think hunting is a totally legitimate use for a gun. I think your grandfather's case is as well, though there certainly are other solutions to his problem, if more difficult and less efficient ones.
Sure, you might want a gun as a collector, or because you enjoy shooting one at a gun range. But I'm not convinced these "recreational" reasons are good justifications for allowing general ownership of a device designed for its lethality.
You hunt? Fine; get a license for that, and you can own guns made for hunting. You need to a weapon as a part of your job (like your grandfather, perhaps)? Fine; same deal: be licensed and restricted to types of guns appropriate for your job. A gun for fun? No, not fine (let the properly-licensed gun range own and store guns, and you can go and shoot them for fun). A gun for self-defense? I don't think it's clear that use outweighs the downsides of having a heavily-armed populace.
I think the thing that gets me the most is that you can walk into a gun store without having seen our touched a gun in your life, and walk out with a gun (modulo whatever waiting period your locality might require). No training needed, no license needed. Fork over some cash, and here's your deadly projectile weapon and as much ammunition as you want. That's irresponsible.
> " A gun for fun? No, not fine (let the properly-licensed gun range own and store guns, and you can go and shoot them for fun)."
Looking at some other comments, and it crossed my mind that this perspective is very urban-centric. If you live in the country, it's pretty safe and cheap to shoot some cans with a .22, but pretty expensive in time (and maybe money) to travel to a range. And it's that way in a way that makes socioeconomic class way more centric to shooting - more like a racket club.
At the same time, arguably concentrating all the shooters in one place might make things less safe: if you do something stupid on your own property with no-one around, there's nobody to get hurt. But if the person next to you at the range is a moron and does something idiotic like shoot at 90 degrees to the firing line trying to check if a round is chambered with their finger on the trigger, doing it at a range is way less safe than doing it in the middle of nowhere.
Now you might argue that people who've been trained won't do stupid things like that, but despite drivers being licensed I still see a lot of stupid on the road and don't really believe that it'd be any different with guns.
I mean "the thing that gets you the most" is pretty much true for literally almost anything. You can go to a store and pick up an TIG welder or a chainsaw, or all kinds of other things no problem, no question, that arguably require much more in the way of practice and training than a firearm.
That said, I don't really get what you think licenses and such accomplish. A gun is 19th century tech that you make in a garage. Anybody who really wants one can make one, all the registration and licensing is mostly a burden on people who are mostly harmless. And it's very post-facto/pre-cog-ish.
I think you're paraphrasing wrong. Preventing the additional loss of thousands of dollars of that year's income and livelihood (on top of the calves that were lost) with a gun is more accurate. And additional loss would have been impactful.
Like another commenter said, this usecase would be covered under a hunting/farming license in most countries. It is absolutely not necessary to have an indiscriminate personal right to carry in cities.
Even in a city I don't really think someone would sit and wait for animal control while a pack of strays attack a pet or try to break into a chicken coop (or something else similar) rather than try to save their animal(s) somehow.
(Though in a city I imagine that means things like throwing rocks or using a shovel.)
In most US counties animal control responds late or not at all. Obviously you can't seriously expect farmers to just wait around while feral dogs kill their livestock.
The cost of gun education in public education would be pretty higher than simply increasing funding to animal control in order to improve response times.
Farms are large and spread out. It could take animal control 15 minutes just to drive from one end of your farm to where you are, let alone from wherever their office is.
The rural US is very spread out and large, and often slow to travel over washed out dirt roads or worse. If you wanted 5 or 10 minute response time across the continental US you'd have to hire and equip 3 or 4 people per every 5 or 10 miles across the whole US, people who'd 95%+ of their time doing nothing.
I can't see how there's any way gun education in public high schools or similar wouldn't be drastically cheaper. Not that I think they're options that should be viewed as policy substitutes or alternatives.
You have the same problem with fire fighters. If you want a quick response time you need to have trained people that can be deployed quickly in the case of a fire.
The solution is neither to have full time employed 3-4 people every 5 miles, nor to accept multiple hours of response time for someone to drive all the way from the nearest station. Some might think air travel solves it but even that would generally too slow when minutes can be the difference between a managed fire and an out of control fire. Instead what we have is people who get paid to be stand-by and are positioned close enough that if they get a call they will deploy and be at the area within reasonable time, but who otherwise have an regular job like being a farmer. It not optimal but it is distinctly faster compared to the alternative.
This is actually the model used for animal control in rural areas. The person being hired is generally a local hunter (ie, many who are farmers themselves) who gotten some training and hopefully get some compensation when there is call. If a car hits an animal and you need someone to track the wounded animal down, it would most likely be a local hunter.
I am honestly a bit surprised by the attitude in this thread and how this model is not more well known.
So I guess you don't have fire extinguishers in your house, car or place of work, only buy car liability insurance because it's the law, or home insurance because it's required by your mortgage holder? No insurance for your personal property?
I've owned guns for self protection in the same 40+ years and have never needed them for self-protection, but I also haven't needed any of the other above forms of insurance except the last which came in really handy when my apartment was hit by a natural disaster.
> So I guess you don't have fire extinguishers in your house, car or place of work, only buy car liability insurance because it's the law, or home insurance because it's required by your mortgage holder? No insurance for your personal property?
GP said he didn't know anybody who needed to use a gun.
- My wife has used a fire extinguisher
- I have been reimbursed by car insurance
- I have several friends who have been reimbursed by homeowners and renters insurance.
I think there's going to be two major sources of differing experiences on this:
1. Where you live. If you live in the suburbs and drive everywhere, there are just very few opportunities for you to get "attacked on the street" as you are hardly ever walking down the street.
2. Disagreement on what situations necessitate a gun. I know a lot of people who think that e.g. robbery is insufficient reason to defend yourself with deadly force.
Similarly I've seen people astonished that someone might choose to defend themselves from an unarmed man with a gun, even when that man is larger and is not allowing them to leave.
Well, there was one friend of mine who I convinced to keep a fire extinguisher in her car, and a week later on her commute she was able to hand it to man who then saved his car from total destruction by engine fire.
But I too also know more people who've been threatened with lethal force on the streets than have had reason to use fire extinguishers. Doesn't deter me from keeping a big fire extinguisher wherever I live.
I've never had a fire in my home, but I have been attacked in the street. If I had been armed, I expect it would have gone a lot worse for me than it did. I might not be alive to write this post had I had a gun on me then.
I think it's also important to highlight like you did that guns don't solve all problems and that with them you can end up in an even worse situation. Just like some people get killed by seatbelts in a way.
Considering the huge backlash against the vaccine due to the negative effects, I would argue most people aren't capable of doing a cost/benefit analysis and understand that.
That happened on Monday. Today is Thursday. Also, it wasn’t a “murder” (I’ll take a killing, but the victim did not die.)
EDIT: I can’t help be curious about what’s in the mind of someone who is so blatantly dishonest. Right at the top it says “Published 2 days ago”, and in the second paragraph it says “Monday”. Is the idea that you assume no one will actually take a look at the link?
So your point is that it is not that bad because it really only happen once every couple days? I mean, let's say it happens once a month or once a year. Is it worth it? Are guns preventing more deaths than they are causing?
When the marginal utility gained from investing somewhere else is better, of course.
You're getting all mixed up between normative ("should") claims, and descriptive ("is") claims. Is it good that people die by getting tangled in their bedsheets? No. Is it good that a toddler occasionally accidentally shoot someone? No. Should we spend time on either problem? No.
Yes, the original post was not trying to precisely inform the frequency, just that it's not a once in a generation occurrence, but rather something that happens regularly. By trying to refute the frequency, you're completely missing the argument. That's what me and other people are saying.
In order to have a rational and productive discussion about policy one needs to have some kind of handle on reality, as well as a minimum of truthfulness and respect for the people you’re talking to.
Overstating the incidence of an event by a factor of 20 means you don’t have a handle on reality. Deliberately lying about news events means you’re not truthful. Putting words in people’s mouths and imparting inhumane motivations to them means you lack respect. All of these things happened in just this handful of comments, and, no, I don‘t think I’m missing anything at all.
The phrase "everyday occurrence" does not mean that something literally happens every day, it means that it happens commonly enough that it's not broadly notable.
You derailed this comment thread by quibbling over the specific frequency of these tragic events, rather than focussing on the point - which was that these accidental killings do indeed happen frequently - perhaps more frequently than you realised.
Factor of 20? Who's exaggerating now? If the linked incident happened on Monday, we could perhaps extrapolate that this happens perhaps once every four days, so that's a factor of four.
Seriously, though, maybe this is just a local colloquialism or language barrier thing, but to me, the phrase "everyday occurrence" doesn't mean "something that literally happens every day", it means "something that is common and happens often".
To be fair, cars are probably in their way out too. Their are indeed inefficient and dangerous tools. But yeah, being able to connect cities, people with the best society can offer is a benefit much greater than people using guns to threat one another.
I think it's a lot easier to make a non-destructive positive case for cars, despite the number of people killed in car crashes every day, than it is to make the case for guns, which are devices specifically designed to injure and kill.
Indeed. Given that a toddler isn't capable of "murder," we're talking accidents. Of which there were 486 lethal ones in the US in 2019, the last year for which the CDC has collated the data. Pretty sure there were more than 121 lethal accidents caused by people older than toddlers.
The actual rate of gun deaths caused a toddler (age <= 3) firing a gun was 15 for 2015, in 13 of which the toddler shot himself.¹ True, “murder” is not the right term, but I wasn’t quibbling about that. I’m not sure “accident” is the right term, either, as in every case an adult committed a horrible crime in allowing the child access to the loaded weapon.
If there were 486 toddler gun deaths, then on average, those occurred 1.33 times per day. The frequency of gun-related toddler deaths is literally "every day".
No one said anything like there being “486 toddler gun deaths”. Much less that many deaths caused by a toddler firing a gun, which was the original subject.
The odds of a fire in my kitchen, someone dinging my car, and even a tree falling on my home in a storm are all much higher than the odds of me needing to fire a bullet at another human being. In fact something similar to all three of those things have happened to me already at one point or another. On the other hand I've never needed or even heard of anyone who has needed to use a gun. What's wrong with a baseball bat for self defense? I have one in my closet and never had to draw it, but due to its lower lethality if I had to I would have zero qualms about taking a full swing and I think anyone on the receiving end would realize the same pretty quickly.
If they have a handgun chances are I'm dead before I can draw my own and train one on them anyway. I'm not Clint Eastwood and this isn't a hollywood western. Whoever has the drop wins and by definition that's the intruder since I'm not going to spend every second of my life with a gun in my hand.
Projecting your claimed inadequacies, which I don't believe for a minute especially before you moved the goalposts from home defense ("I have [a baseball bat] in my closet") to a Spaghetti Western, says nothing about actual gun owners.
By that logic, we should also have grenades, missiles, and perhaps a tactical nuclear weapon at home, just in case. Probably won't need them, but who knows.
> I've owned guns for self protection in the same 40+ years and have never needed them for self-protection, but I also haven't needed any of the other above forms of insurance except the last which came in really handy when my apartment was hit by a natural disaster.
So what you're saying is that you don't need your guns, but the insurance did come in handy after all. Got it. I feel like you're making the parent's point for them.
Your "logic" is missing the minor detail of required precognition. I didn't start buying personal property ("renters") insurance in the 1980s because I knew I'd need it decades later.
1. Most people don’t even understand how a gun mechanically functions. It lives in the realm of magic for most people, despite being mechanically very simple. This base ignorance of the function of a firearm is one of the biggest reasons why firearm-related accidents happen. You might not want a gun, and fine—that’s your stance—but you should know how it works and how to use it.
2. We don’t nuke each other all the time either. But “God made man and Colt made ‘em equal”—the gun is an equalizer.
I think people in America think we’re some united hegemony, believing all the same thing. No. We don’t. We all have different views and are pursuing happiness differently. Sometimes this pursuit leads to injury of someone else’s pursuit of happiness. Guns, along with education, give people the means of preventing and give meaningful deterrence to those who would disrupt their rightful pursuit of happiness.
Finally, regarding unintentional killings: that’s why I said education on guns in necessary. Regarding unlawfulness: you must have your head in the sand to think a criminal isn’t already committed to breaking the law.
> 1. Most people don’t even understand how a gun mechanically functions. It lives in the realm of magic for most people, despite being mechanically very simple.
I don't know; roller-delayed blowback took me a long time to wrap my head around.
If you're talking the feeding mechanism, the FN P90 has something similar (though the ammunition is stored longitudinally rather than vertically).
[edit]
Oh wait, I see now it's the burst-fire mode, where it doesn't buffer until after the 3rd round has been fired. I remember seeing that a while back; it is crazy.
1. Most people don’t even understand how a gun mechanically functions. It lives in the realm of magic for most people, despite being mechanically very simple. This base ignorance of the function of a firearm is one of the biggest reasons why firearm-related accidents happen. You might not want a gun, and fine—that’s your stance—but you should know how it works and how to use it.
Unless you need to clean it and for that you can get help if you're ignorant, you don't need this detailed knowledge. You need to only know how to load and safety clear it, ideally know how to clear a jam, and that if you move any safeties to "Fire" it will fire if you pull the trigger.
As much as people like us are horrified by how little education so many people get about their guns, centuries of ergonomic improvements would seem to allow a tremendous number of them to use them safely and effectively in high stress self-defense situations.
> > Most people don’t even understand how a gun mechanically functions. It lives in the realm of magic for most people, despite being mechanically very simple. This base ignorance of the function of a firearm is one of the biggest reasons why firearm-related accidents happen. You might not want a gun, and fine—that’s your stance—but you should know how it works and how to use it.
> Unless you need to clean it and for that you can get help if you're ignorant, you don't need this detailed knowledge. You need to only know how to load and safety clear it, ideally know how to clear a jam, and that if you move any safeties to "Fire" it will fire if you pull the trigger.
That is FAR more information than most people have. Even the basic rules of gun safety - never point a gun at something you aren't willing to shoot, treat every firearm as if it's loaded, and keep your booger hook off the bang switch (and outside of the trigger guard entirely) until you're ready to fire - are more than most people know. "How to clear the gun or check the safety" might as well be rocket science.
I know a lot of people like to look down on their fellow Americans to the extent they even consider them to be so, but the hardest statistics we have on your concern is fatal gun accidents per year, and they've gone down from 800 to 500, actually 486 for 2019 from the CDC's most recent statistics, as the population has increased by 50%, the number of gun owners has massively increased and the number of guns owned by them has as much as doubled.
The "massive increase" is hard to get numbers for due to our culture war, but no one sane doubts it, and there's obvious reasons for it and the last fact which is on more solid ground, the nationwide sweep of "shall issue" or better concealed carry regimes and then add the "troubles" of the 21st Century starting with 9/11. And how many states went "Constitution Carry," we don't need no stinking licences this year? We're up to 21 total per Wikipedia.
Another question is how many fatal gun accidents were intentional suicides that the medical examiner, for whatever reason, didn't want to enter as such.
I know of one which was blatant second degree murder, but the perp was a "friend" visiting with a few others to the victim's home, all around 14 years old. Taking a gun on its way to the safe you found in a part of the house no one was supposed to be in, pointing it at your "friend's" head and pulling the trigger was ruled an unfortunate "accident."
See a bunch that just so happened to occur while the gun was "being cleaned," you can even begin that without emptying the chamber so you can work on the barrel.
Surprisingly, no. The number of misses at very close range in high-stress situations is very high. Hit rates for cops are in the 25% - 50% range, and that's with training.
It's easy enough to get a gun to fire. Hitting the right target requires practice.
I know NYPD had guns with really heavy triggers, far past anything reasonable. Lighter triggers (not really light, standard) and red dot optics would probably help a lot.
The vast majority of cops don't train very much, and requalification is often minimally difficult. Overall the civilian population is probably better trained.
This is also biased by big cities that have extinguished their gun culture, NYC in particular. That has grave consequences, shall I say.
I mean, an evergreen category of unintentional discharges is people pulling the magazine, and then accidentally firing the chambered round because they thought the gun was empty.
Notoriously, Glock pistols don't have a magazine disconnect, and their field strip procedure is to drop the magazine, rack the slide, pull the trigger, then pushing the slide lock to remove it. Skipping one of those steps has put a lot of holes in walls over the last few decades.
It's a gun. It's supposed to be dangerous! Owning a gun without knowing how it works is bad.
I don't see that number on that site. Instead, I see:
> The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
That's equivalent to saying we have almost no idea how often guns are used defensively.
is that so strange? In 40+ years, I have never needed a seatbelt. I do know of 2 people that were prevented from escaping their car because of their seatbelt, and died. yet every time I get in a car, I put one on.
Same. I've lived in NYC since the tail end of the crime wave in the 90s. Walked past drug dealers 80 times a day when I was younger. Lived across from a supposed crack house in my 20s. I only personally know of two people were attacked on the street in about 25 years. One was sucker punched and didn't even see who did it before they ran off. The other fought off a very scrawny attacker with an umbrella. I've never been on the receiving end of anything worse than an insult. I don't know a single person who owns a gun and I've even seen one that wasn't in the holster of a cop. My number one fear of living here by a mile is me or my family (my kids walk themselves home from school) getting hit by a car.
600k-2.5m/year is specifically lawful defensive uses. If you count "shot skeet", or "went hunting", or "went to the range", the number of lawful uses goes up a LOT.
But I hesitate to bring that up, because I don’t believe there is ANY moral ambiguity for the use of firearms for sporting purposes. Ambiguity only arises in the face of human conflict.
I will defend the ownership, possession, use and carry of firearms on the specific grounds that they ARE tools with the express purpose of hurting, maiming and killing. The specific justification in the US Constitution for citizen ownership of arming of a militia. I also oppose the use of professional militaries as I believe they are corrupt. Fundamentally professional armies have an incentive misalignment: fight for pay, not, fight for something “virtuous”. Therefore “don’t bite the hand that feeds”.
Moreover, the rights of the first amendment can only ensured by the use of force, ultimately, by those exercising said rights. The first amendment is meaningless without the second.
We can count the rounds fired this year alone probably number great than the whole conflict in Afghanistan, all lawful use, but I want to highlight that a GUN is useful being a GUN, not a hobby tool for target practice. If it’s merely a sporting device, well then you should be happy when they take away the guns as we still have airsoft and crossbows for sporting purposes.
No, we defend firearms for what they are and justify them on that use: Force, or the threat of force.
I don't have any particular interest here, as I'm quite ambivalent about guns but the 600k-2.5m is hotly debated and comes from phone surveys. The CDC cites Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013)[1] when reporting that number. The source says it may actually be as low as 100k uses per year.
Funny thing, the first study was done by a gun control group, and long before shall issue concealed carry made self-defense a lot more common by allowing it outside the house. Their number, which did not include a person using a gun more than once a year: about a million.
But it doesn't matter, it's an unalienable right enshrined in the Constitution, "and if it saves just one life...."
If you're not a criminal, it's actually very unlikely that any of those things will happen.
The majority of shootings (more than 60%) are suicides; these are both intentional and generally lawful. Evidence suggests that most of the rest (between 20% and 30% of all shootings) are criminal conflict -- a lot of people with criminal records shooting other people with criminal records. Here again, there is a lot more to the story than just owning a gun. Unintentional shootings are fairly unusual, less than 4% of all shooting deaths. This is in part why thinking about guns has to be very different from our thinking when it comes to "safety" issues, like car accidents (95% of traffic deaths are unintentional).
The lawful uses of guns are, in fact, much more common than killings. These include hunting and target practice. Most gun owners will never shoot another person but that doesn't mean they don't use their guns.
In my 40 years, there was exactly one time I needed to defend myself, and a gun probably would have made the situation worse. I would have had too little time to draw it, and likely it would have been wrestled away from me and used against me. The people who attacked me had no weapons (or at least none they felt they needed to show me), so a gun would have escalated things.
I walked away from that with a black eye and stolen phone and laptop, but if a gun had been in play I might not have walked away at all.
I'd rather reduce my chances of being shot, which is a thing you can do by simply declining to purchase a firearm[1]
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
While the study did control for factors like socioeconomic status, race, and job, I think it's inherently difficult to control for the idea that somebody is much more likely to carry a gun when they perceive their risk of being attacked as higher. For example, if they frequently interact with dangerous people in their personal lives.
I would not be surprised to learn that, say, people who get restraining orders against their exes are more likely to be murdered by their exes than people who don't. Does that mean that getting a restraining order is dangerous? Or does it mean that people in dangerous situations tend to get restraining orders?
That study doesn't even say that. It doesn't propose causation, and looks at accessible firearms, not gun ownership. There's no way a gun kept in a safe or a nightstand reasonably affects your likelihood of getting shot, everything else being equal.
> We also did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault.
The study's methodology looks terrible. It's a case-control population study of Philly over 3 years. Every case began as a notification about a shooting case investigated by police. The vast majority of shooting data comes from shooting cases forwarded by police, not by sampling and then finding which of the sample were involved in shootings. As such, they excluded a valuable dataset of police-reported assaults that didn't result in shootings, which could have corrected some biases in the data based on how the cases came to the researchers' attention.
The 95% confidence intervals are wildly variable, and if you look at figure 3, any significant amount of lying by surveyed control subjects about having guns leads to insignificant results. If you call up some random gun-owner in Philly and ask them if they have a gun, how likely do you think it is that they'll lie? Those 4.x and 5.x odds ratios look impressive, but even after assuming 0% lying by case controls, they only barely clear the statistical significance bar.
It's difficult to speculate all the ways a study like could be flawed without seeing the underlying data and putting a lot of effort into analyzing it and how they corrected for potential confounders, but I'm not at all surprised they found gun possession correlated with increased odds of getting shot.
The causation determination really comes down to what kind of gun owner you are. There are a subset who own guns, carry guns, and do everything they can reasonably do to stay out of trouble, which often means avoiding friends or social environments that are generally "trouble". In that case, gun possession probably lowers your risk, because it makes you hyperaware of dangers and their avoidance. It's like a game you play every time you leave your home, of what can go wrong and what's the best way to handle it. Very quickly, that game becomes a habit and becomes uninteresting except when you do something or go somewhere unusual.
Then there's the subset of people who own guns and carry them because they're likely to get into trouble, they go around looking for trouble, or they go around oblivious to trouble. For them, maybe there's mild causation, having a gun makes them more confident to take more risks, or maybe there's no causation, and it's just the higher rate of gun ownership among those types (which includes criminals) that leads to poorly designed studies finding a statistical correlation between gun possession and getting shot. And there's no way to run these studies I've ever seen that satisfies both sides. Someone always thinks some study disregards something important.
Even ignoring this study, there's the fact that sometimes we get sad and having a simple suicide mechanism laying around your home makes you dramatically more likely to kill yourself[1].
> Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t.
I don't understand why the pro-gun crowd flails around trying to justify it. Just say you like guns, it's okay. Nobody is coming to take them (unless the recent Texas 'one weird trick to defeat the Constitution with civil lawsuits' plays out to its logical conclusion and we get states allowing anyone to sue anyone involved in a firearm sale).
I've heard this stuff literally my entire life, and it has me pretty jaded. Democrats in office do nothing but increase firearms sales because a lot of gullible people still believe these chicken little stories.
Yeah, this is the problem with relying on statistics to determine your life choices. Real life isn’t a series of probabilities, it’s a series of events - for which you can prepare for and plan to protect yourself.
The problem with more guns everywhere for everyone is that there will be more successful suicides, more lethal mass shootings and far more accidents with serious injuries.
Plus, I don't want the same 10-15% of drivers on the freeway who speed and don't use signals to also be guaranteed to own a loaded gun they don't know how to use.
This is a good thing. No matter what the lunatic fringe on the left might believe, sexual dimorphism among humans is real and is visible in our physical characteristics. Guns help narrow that physical gap between men and women.
The sanest view on this topic I ever saw out of Hollywood was in Season 2 of True Detective.
Ray: What's with all the knives?
Antigone: Could you do this job if everyone you encountered could physically overpower you? I mean, forget police work. No man could walk around like
that without going nuts.
Ray: So, they're equalizers. Makes sense.
Antigone: No, I'd still wear them even if I wasn't on the job. Fundamental difference between the sexes is that one of them can kill the other with their bare hands. Man of any size lays hands on me, he's gonna bleed out in under a minute.
I believe it. In Seattle we've had a huge spike in crimes, as violent protesting, anti-police sentiment, and defunding have resulted in a mass exodus of police officers. Much of this crime isn't even tracked well, since a lot of it is unreported (things like fires started by vagrants, sewage dumping, public exposure, etc). There have also been increased shootings, armed robberies, and harassment on the street. It's gotten to the point where my neighborhood has flyers posted warning women to watch out for a known predator that the police can't do anything about for some reason. Female friends I know that would count themselves as staunch Democrats are all of a sudden discussing things like going to a beginner's gun class as a group, which I would have thought unthinkable just 1-2 years ago.
You've payed no attention whatsoever to US gun culture 2.0, we welcome women and minorities with open arms, and women were always welcome, every heard of Annie Oakley?? Seen the NRA celebrating on the front page of their membership magazine women who won all gender national championships?
You completely misunderstand our motivations for keeping and bearing arms, and thus your hope is doomed to not come true.
As an unfortunate life member of the NRA, I get the magazines. I also don't agree with you. I think the NRA is what's wrong with gun culture. There are much more sane organizations in the US who support both gym ownership AND common sense gun laws. The NRA is a lobbying group and they're soulless. They fight against any reasonable change that isn't purely for show (and they fight the useless laws too that try and band forearms for looking scary because they're too stupid to see how useless laws would further their agenda).
Hi there, I'm a member of leadership for a group called AAPIGO. The GO is Gun Owners. I'm one of the ally members, helping bridge the gap between Asian gun owners and your more traditional NRA member stereotype. This is the future.
> My wife (and many women) has felt that the only way to effect change in our gun laws would be for white men to feel like targets.
That's literally a joke. I heard it on a Dave Chappelle special.
IIRC, actual gun rights groups like the NRA want black people and women to buy guns, because they're about gun rights and realize they're better secured if their constituency is larger.
So? That was in 1967. Do you think nothing has changed since then? IIRC, I don't even think the NRA was even much of a gun rights organization until later.
That was in 1967, do you think nothing has changed since then? IIRC, I don't even think the NRA was even much of a gun rights organization until later.
They were fighting it then, I've read many membership magazine issues from the 1960s, but lost so comprehensively starting in the next year with the Gun Control Act of 1968 and through the high point of gun control in the 1970s that the leadership decided to surrender this issue and retreat to hunting and target shooting and move their headquarters from D.C. to Colorado.
In the 1977 annual meeting in Cincinnati this leadership was ousted and people with a focus that included even having the right to hunt and target shoot with guns replaced them. Fast forward another ten years and the nationwide sweep of "shall issue" and better concealed carry regimes started in Florida with help from the NRA. Now 42 states and ~75% of the population, for all but Illinois done legislatively.
White men? These discussions about guns in America are always full of people completely ignorant of the fact that black and Hispanic men account for the majority of shootings. It's really a black and Hispanic men problem as both shooter and victim.
Minorities aren't safe. But it's themselves that they're not safe from, not white men. People almost exclusively shoot members of their own race. White people are safe because other white people aren't very violent.
No, which is an interesting take. No major political party is trying to abolish the 2nd amendment. None. Reasonable limits on firearms and access to firearms is not going to take away your right to self defense. It could keep more guns out of the hands of felons by requiring federal background checks on private sales. Buy that's crazy, right? I should be able to sell my Super Redhawk to the drunk across the street without anyone knowing about it! Sure, I've seen him hit his wife but he was angry and drunk. He's normally a cool guy.
(For the readers: that's a 40 cal revolver that suuuuuucks to shoot and the drunk across the street is a real person, with a bunch of guns, who would like to buy it from me)
"Reasonable limits on firearms and access to firearms is not going to take away your right to self defense."
It depends on what one sees as reasonable. One might reasonably believe that the requirements for private sale background checks might not make an impact because there's no monitoring or effective enforcement mechanisms in the suggested system.
When we use qualifiers like reasonable or common sense, it's an attack on the other side and creates a divide between the debating parties. People should be debating the the proposed solutions and the objections to them.
I didn't say you wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment. Your now flagged post stated making people feel vulnerable will lead to more regulation. Or that's what you hoped would happen.
People make choices about how they will respond to feeling vulnerable. Some people rely more on authority, for example, wanting more gun regulations. Some people will opt to go get a carry permit or purchase a weapon to protect themselves.
My point is that you are hoping that people who have already chosen the self-protection strategy will switch to the authority strategy for dealing with vulnerability. This might happen in a few rare cases, but it seems like you don't understand gun culture or conservatives in general.
I no longer visit my out of state sister since she became a gun enthusiast who goes to the shooting range regularly for the "muscle memory", to use her own words.
It just didn't seem like a good idea anymore, considering my tendency to return home drunk in the wee hours on the weekends. Muscle memory, meet drunken brother repeatedly punching in the wrong alarm code @3AM, no thanks.
I wonder if part of the driving force behind this is simply that men have purchased more guns in the past. Firearms are heirlooms in most families, and a hunting father is always want to expose their son to the craft. Men simply have more avenues to get guns from, with the strange way our social structure is organized.
It will be interesting to watch the concept of weapon ownership be emasculated over the next few years, I can only wonder how the traditionalists will react in the long term.
The community has thus far been extremely supportive of women. Some of the most popular competitive shooters are females. Sporting clays is extremely popular with women now. Lena Miculek especially has made quite a name for herself.
Despite what the media likes to portray, the gun community isn't a bunch of racist rednecks and tends to be a very open and welcoming group. Just don't bring up politics...
I grew up attending a Rod and Gun club where that was certainly not the case. Women were outright not allowed to register unless they married in, and the misogyny was palpable. That's just my personal experience, but I have yet to meet another group that rivals their level of gatekeeping.
I really think this is a great development. The only political cause I have ever donated to is gun rights, as I essentially view it as the canary in the coal mine for civil liberties in america. I would like to see gun owners as diverse as possible.
I would assume this is strictly a function of the more recent polarization of the political spectrum. I read the paper but it doesn't break down all the numbers in a more detailed way.
Kind of. The "Saturday Night Special", a racist term for a cheap handgun, generally refers to a Hi-Point or similar cheap polymer pistol, and used to refer to inexpensive revolvers. An heirloom may be a nice bolt-action or a Colt 1911 from one of the World Wars. Most modern guns are very good, though, especially compared to even 20 years ago. The Sig Sauer P365 is a great example, fitting 10+1 rounds of 9mm ammo into a complete package that would have barely fit 7+1 of .380 just 10 years ago.
Less that you'd think so, there's strict limits to how cheap you can make guns while their still being safe. Heirloom grade guns, though, not so much, nobody is going to treat a Glock as one unless it acquired that through its importance to a family over the years. Like one inexpensive and very worn 1930s .22LR I have that was first owned by my grandfather; still works very well though and doesn't look really bad or anything.
>there's strict limits to how cheap you can make guns while their still being safe
We are nowhere near that limit.
Handguns are hundred year old technology with few parts requiring good machining tolerances and lend themselves well to being manufactured in the cheapest places on earth.
The fact that a bottom dollar handgun in the may cost as much as a bottom dollar replacement engine for a piece of power equipment that has many more parts, many more features requiring fairly precise machining, requires far more assembly and is many times larger is a testament to the cost of complying with industry regulation.
>I assume that cheap stuff outnumbers nice stuff by a few orders of magnitude, just like every other consumer facing industry.
Depends on when it was made. Stuff made in the 70s and earlier are very high quality. Probably just like every other consumer facing industry. Even today, you can find cheap guns, but they're still made mostly of steel and they have to survive an explosion, so they're pretty sturdy.
> Close to half of all new U.S. gun buyers since the beginning of 2019 have been women, a shift for a market long dominated by men, according to a new study.
Not so fast! When it comes to demographics for groups, things don't always break down along populations. Think about how there we don't see women as ~51% of computer engineers.
That said, previous numbers show that gun ownership by gender was about 2:1 in favor of men (45% of American men own guns vs 19% of women).
This does show a pretty big spike in the number of women purchasing guns.
There's no substance to the Harper's Bazzar article, and The Guardian one cites two cases, one I'm not familiar with, but the other was a clear case of attempted murder that got so notorious the woman was given a pass in the end.
Key detail in that case: when you withdraw from a heated situation, retrieve a gun from your vehicle, and go back to it and shoot at the person you're arguing with, you're not exactly demonstrating legitimate self-defense.
Needless to say they don't list any cases where things went right for a woman defending herself. Do you believe there are absolutely none of those? Do you follow any news sources that would even cover them??
This is why I view HN via RSS. It delivers the top posts even if posts are flagged.
>This is why I’m growing more and more discontent with HN.
You’re not alone. In fact HN is my last real contact with the mainstream curated internet. I left Twitter etc. some 6-7 years ago. My days here are numbered due to relentless injection of politics.
HN is a community-driven news aggregator, where the community decides what stuff they want to see on the front page. "I want this on the front page" is done using upvotes, while "I don't want this on the front page" is done using flags - which are weighted more heavily than upvotes.
Also, as others have said, the HN algorithm penalizes things with more comments than upvotes.
Finally, the mods (dang and...one other) tend to take a very light touch with respect to moderation.
You can decide that you don't like the community (personally, I think that HN started its Eternal September 5-ish years ago), but I don't think that this counts as "manipulated discourse".
There's nothing particularly systemic about it, I'd imagine a low-karma, paywalled post with 100 comments gets sandbagged instantly on this site, and the number of downvoted comments in this thread certainly don't help it's case.
I don't know, if a military goes rogue, they'll go for the gun owners first.
I don't know how many of the contributors here have been to the army, but if you have been, you will know that some shotguns and guns won't go far against military arsenals. It might help a bit against police forces, but military? Forget it.
To even compete with a military force, you need coordination and logistics.
And this is one of the reasons why I am against civilian gun carriage:
I am in Europe and have lived in some LATAM places where everyone, everyone carries a gun or has a couple of them at home, the law be damned.
It's a bit better in the US, as the poverty in the US is not as widespread, but I believe a peaceful society should be without guns, police can have them, military can have them. If that don't work, you need a revolution or run away anyway, and a Glock won't do much there.
> if a military goes rogue, they'll go for the gun owners first
How? There's no national registry of gun owners. Many new guns are built at home, and the government doesn't know about those at all. You can even 3d print them now, and I don't mean crappy single-shot ones, I mean things like the FGC-9.
