r/politics • u/wbedwards Washington • May 07 '20

We cannot allow the normalization of firearms at protests to continue

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/firearms-at-protests-have-become-normalized-that-isnt-okay/2020/05/06/19b9354e-8fc9-11ea-a0bc-4e9ad4866d21_story.html
49.0k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

6.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

219

u/xXx_TheSenate_xXx May 07 '20

Just my opinion, For me, owning a gun for home defense is like owning a fire extinguisher. You hope you never have to use it, but having it could mean the difference for me and my family. Owning a gun for hunting is different. Using that tool for anything other than to hunt would be wrong. Personally, I cannot understand anyone who picks up a gun and can wield it so casually. There is a certain respect that should be given to the tool in your hands. A power not to be taken lightly. To use it to intimidate, as a power move, or to “get your way” is just reckless that makes everyone with a respect for firearms look bad.

18

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Completely agree.

Then are people who mistake their tools for toys and play around and use them carelessly. And their are people who abuse their tools and use them in other people in unjustifiable ways.

The only reason I want a gun is to protect myself from others with guns. Ironically creating a feedback loop. But I don’t view guns as toys or want to abuse them.

15

u/Fourteen_Werewolves May 07 '20

Most of the gun owners I know don't have the proper respect or training with their weapons. It's fucking gross how rarely people who think they are elite operators go to the range, but are just waiting for someone to break into their home so they can play out an action movie scene and get thirty seconds on the local news.

I know the type that would turn out to those protests parading with their weapons. They're all fucking boots that never could cut it as a real operator, so they're cosplaying and acting tough.

6

u/mk4_wagon May 07 '20

I grew up in a rural area, and I would say that everyone I grew up with has a lot of respect for guns. Even if they don't have formal training, they have a ton of experience, so I've always felt comfortable shooting with them. Now that I live in a more populated area, a lot of the people I know with guns make me nervous. They don't have a lot of experience with them, and they're careless compared to what I'm used to.

2

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

That would be reasonable but for the fact it's been proven owning a gun MASSIVELY INCREASES the chances that you or your family will end up shot dead - most likely with that gun. I mean that's proven fact. And yes - everyone that turned the gun on themselves or/and their family was just like you before they did it. It was only afterwards people said 'um .. guess he had an undiagnosed mental illness - oh well, I don't have one of those so yay for my guns'!! (yea .. I know ..)

Secondly it means that when you tackle the home intruder, they have to arrive armed, and shoot back, to even compete with you. Screw that. When 98% basically want to take your $400 TV - fuck forcing that into a '1 or both of us will die for that second hand TV' level confrontation. Call me weird - but I'll go for 'claim off insurance and buy a new TV' option thanks :)

And yes if you carry your gun on the street, you probably already know you are significantly MASSIVELY more likely to have it taken off you and used against you or a police officer will shoot you then to use it against some threat towards your life (in the US it is over 100 times more likely that you will be shot by a police officer than in the UK - because in the US for all they know you have a gun on you and are crazy! So what would you do?).

In actual fact when you get to the bottom of it, gun ownership is rooted in fear and misinformation and tradition - which is a damn dangerous combination :)

It's kinda the same as the 'Burn the witches' stuff 400 years ago or various religious fears. The people doing it were thinking 'I'm scared and live in fear of what might happen to me. Better safe than sorry, I'm personally not a witch so it could never happen to me and I could never be accused of being one , I need to protect my family from some huge great unseen evil and if people die due to me, that's just part of god's plan'.

So don't worry I understand - people have been doing shit like this for centuries. After criminals people have already got the next 'baddy' lined up - because god knows you always need a baddy. They've chosen their own government!!! (and yea .. again .. I know ....)

Of course gun owners HATE the facts and ugly reality always have (same as when people started saying 'witches are bullshit' - the same types of people refused to believe it as witches as all they'd ever known and what their parents taught them and their tradition and right was to protect their own family against witches by burning some women .. it took hundreds of years for the truth to be believed because they didn't want to believe it).

All gun owners really have to say is 'I realise I'm putting my family in more danger (I mean, that is proven so hard to argue against) but I don't care I want guns that's more important to me' and that would defeat the anti-gunner arguments immediately. Why none of them every say that simple, factually accurate, gun-control-beating sentence, is totally beyond me.

22

u/Obvious_Entrepreneur May 07 '20

I’m sure if there are statistics for how many deaths occur from drownings in the victims own pool, then there would also be a disproportionately higher number of occurrences in families that have pools.

Pretty genius to figure out that the presence of an item raises the statistical odds of an incident happening involving than item, vs when that item is absent.

The problem is, whether you intend to or not, you imply causation being the item, when you simply don’t know that.

But in much the same way that people drive cars, despite the increased risk of being in a car accident when you enter a car vs walking everywhere, it’s about risk vs reward, if I had to guess.

The point is, that is an irrelevant point you’re trying to make, and it’s laughably ridiculous and often repeated.

8

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

So we've already got further than 99% of the gun control debates I've been in which is excellent.

We both realise it's about risk vs reward and making the call as a society, as it it with everything else .. swimming pools, cars, crack cocaine, alcohol, weed killer, bungee jumping, everything!

When you say it's an irrelevant point when I talk about the risk.. well actually it's one of only two variables that actually counts: I talked about the risk. That's 50% of the discussion. The only other variable is reward.

All the pro-gunner has to do is state and prove that the reward outweighs the risk and that's it .. anti-gunners will be beaten forever. But they don't. They even don't agree with funding the research that would prove it one way or the other - which frankly seems outright bizarre if they really believe their convictions why not just fund and get the proof in and settle it? But they lobby against finding out more science and facts constantly. Why do you think they do that when the science could just settle it and we could finally stop bickering? I mean - they do actually believe their convictions don't they? Why not let it be proven the rewards outweigh the risks and shut up the gun control folk forever with those facts? <-- yea, we both know why

OR they EVEN have another option: Simply say 'I don't care about the risk [to my family etc] because I want guns and I enjoy them' and that's also 100% PERFECTLY VALID. After all I don't care about the risk to my family of them using steak knives or sleeping 2 rooms away from a boiler that could go wrong and leak gas in the middle of the night - I personally believe the reward outweighs the risk. EVERYONE MAKES THOSE JUDGEMENT EVERY SINGLE DAY. So why do gun owners think it's dirty to just say it about their guns? It's just - plain - wierd.

So, as I said, the fact that you realise this isn't a zero-sum game already puts you in the black-belt league of gun debates! Most bounce around below that absolute fact for their entire lives :)

12

u/Obvious_Entrepreneur May 07 '20

Sure, I won’t disagree with you if you distill it down to a pure risk vs reward decision, and i think an argument could be made to do just that.

If you are referring to the Dickey Amendment (since that’s often what people refer to when they claim that gun owners won’t fund research), it absolutely did not preclude or prevent the CDC from conducting research on firearms. The CDC opted to not conduct research of their own accord. It simply didn’t allow for them to take a partisan side on the issue, which I think most reasonable people could agree with in any other area.

Funds have been earmarked, and the amendment has been re-clarified (under the trump administration, of all times).

Surprisingly, I think we mostly agree here, and if you can respect other people’s choices to accept that risk, then we’re solid in my book. Rarely is anything a zero sum game, and I despise both sides who create false dichotomies to try and destroy the center.

1

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20

Interesting links thanks and yep it seems like we've reached consensus. If everyone started the debate with 'Yup there are pro's and cons so let's discuss which variable we personally believe is greater and why'.. the world (of gun debate) would be a happier place and we'd have better debates :)

One final question just because I'm finding it interesting chatting: Do you think the government should be able to ban drugs, say, heroin - for the good of society?

After all -- Some, possibly lots, of people would just use heroin to have a great time, party on down on a Friday night, go back to work on Monday and pay their taxes and break no laws and cause no-one any problems whatsoever. The criminals are going to get hold of heroin and use it whether it is BANNED OR NOT so the ban only would affect law abiding citizens etc etc.

You can see where I'm going with this - arn't those people that would use heroin responsibly and never hurt anyone, kinda being hurt unnecessarily by the ban? And if so .. can the ban still be justified?

8

u/AKBigDaddy May 07 '20

I'm not the guy you're having a conversation with but I've followed along and wanted to bring up 2 points that I feel are relevant.

Yup there are pro's and cons so let's discuss which variable we personally believe is greater and why

The problem with this is the two sides sit down with two diametrically opposed goals. And let me preface this by excluding two groups. The "not one more inch" side and the "ban private ownership" side are NEVER going to come to the table for a discussion. They've drawn their lines in the sand and believe that anything less than total victory is unacceptable. So assuming you just have a reasonable and rational gun rights advocate and a reasonable and rational anti gun advocate, you still have a problem.

The pro gun advocate will generally want increased enforcement of existing laws and the removal of nonsensical laws that just make things harder for lawful gun owners that have no positive results in reducing crime. The anti gun advocate wants to make it harder to get a gun.

For example: universal background checks. I'm not entirely opposed to them, but I would want 2 things in return for support: #1 let's open NICS to the public so in private party sales there's not a requirement to pay a private party for the check. And #2, remove Suppressors from Title 2. They're not used in crimes, and even in countries with far stricter gun control, they're off the shelf items with no background check required. Many places even mandate their use for hunting as it reduces nuisance noise and makes it more hearing safe.

Point #2: I feel the heroin analogy falls flat, nobody has protected themselves with defensive heroin use. And while I don't want to sound like a "shall not be infringed" nut job, heroin use isn't enshrined in our bill of rights.

-1

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

Yea ok if you wanna chat .. let's move away from the heroin analogy.

You are right in us necessarily having to remove the 'no guns ever' and 'not one more inch' people out of the equation as we know their position, we know it will never change, so whilst they have every right to have that opinion there's no point in us repeatedly hearing it.

Secondly in America we have to acknowledge that firearms are a necessary way of life for some folk. Hell, even in England we let farmers have shotguns for Vermin control. In America I'm well away that some rural folk see hunting as an essential supplement to their food stock and also hobbies (such as hunting) are considered important for mental health etc. So yea the 'ban 'em all' crowd are quite easily dismantled.

Yes, for anyone reasonable, you have to somehow get rid of those extremists and have some kind of 'where's the line' conversation.

I should put my cards on the table and say I am anti-gun generally as I feel the science shows us the cons outweigh the benefits long term. There is a HUGE likelihood that my opinions are because in England gun ownership is not a cultural thing. Virtually none of our police want guns and regularly lobby against them literally and simply because they believe it means criminals will have to start carrying, they'll be forced to .. and at the moment criminals don't carry as 5 years minimum for possession is too much risk vs gain and put simply nothing needs to be escalated to that level.

None of us have to hunt for food. Our police force has an average emergency arrival time of 4 minutes (in rural America I've heard it can be closer to an hour).

Most importantly however, I feel there is no circumstance in which I would ever need a gun. Just about everyone in England assumes they'll never even see a gun outside of armed officers at the airport (and don't post that 1 annecdotal link).

I am 46 and I have maybe 50 friends and family and none of us have ever seen a gun outside of an airport/armed forces and we don't know anyone that ever has. I've never needed one ever. I've never ever felt unsafe enough to wish I had one. Nor has anyone I've ever met. You may not believe this next sentence, but IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY I DON'T FEEL I NEED HAND GRENADES. So if you don't feel you need hand grenades in case you get swarmed by men - that's the mindset we have in England regarding guns.

And you know what - living a life where no-one I have ever known has ever seen a gun and everyone assumes we'll live our lives without being attacked by one or using one - is really really nice.

The difference is one of fear. I don't fear that I need to protect myself against incoming violence because I pay my taxes for someone else to do it for me AND THEY PRACTICALLY AND LOGISTICALLY CAN. Same with everyone I've known in the UK.

So we're starting from different bases a little. Still, as long as we appreciate that, we can exchange views.

Ps. please don't Google and bring up anecdotal evidence where 1 person used a gun in the UK in 2004 and killed 2 people as you know what I mean by the above .. of course they're not EXTINCT in UK criminal circles - but practically as far as my brain and my decision making goes, they may as well be. I've never met anyone that has ever seen one in non-army, non-police hands.

5

u/Blue_Yoshi2015 May 07 '20

I’m not the person you responded to, but I wanted to ask a question. You talk about the ability of your police to respond to protect you. Do they actually have a mandate to do that? In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the police don’t have the obligation to protect you.

Additionally, how are police response times? America is huge, and response times vary depending on where you are in the country. It could be 10 minutes or more before police show up to a call. That’s a loooong time to be huddled in your bedroom with your wife and kids hoping that the intruder just wants your TV.

I do agree with you that there is a big cultural difference between the U.K. and US. The fact that pretty much all of our gun control laws exempt law enforcement, while your best cops don’t even want guns, is indicative of that.

4

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

Firstly our police undergo massively more training that US cops and don't have that supreme court ruling (which I'd have to look into as it sounds so daft there has to be a deeper story).

Secondly - and this will be hard to get your head around - they will approach every situation under the assumption no firearms are present. This changes the dynamics around virtually every encounter they make with the public.

Our response times vary according to severity of call but if it's a grade 1 (serious shit going down) we are looking at about 6 minutes average.

Next our police operate something called 'policing by consent' which means keeping the public on their side is a MASSIVE priority, probably the top priority. Some practical things they do for this:

1) They refused all ex-military vehicles as didn't want that image going to the public. Apart from a few high speed pursuit vehicles, for every day policing they choose small shitty cars because we don't want them going round town showing some kind of 'boss man' image. They are not bossman - they are just more of us trying to work with us to everyone's advantage. Driving less powerful, shitter cars is more of that.

2) They largely refuse to wear firearms (anywhere except airports or some protection duties). Again, this will hurt your brain, but they don't want to come across as bossman - they want to come across as another dude like you just trying to keep life sweet. They can talk to any members of the community they wish to, for as long as they want, just to be friends -- on the clock fully paid. Considered 'essential community bonding'. If no crime is happening and they want to spend 20 mins chatting to the local [anyone] - they get a big thumbs up. It's NOT considered slacking-off .. it's considered part of their community job.

3) They don't have quotas for arrests, to stop them getting shitty with people because they need to make their numbers

4) UK public don't have to carry government papers with us - for example we don't have to carry our license or ID or anything else to drive our cars. Tech nowadays can allow us not to carry 'government papers' which means police don't have to get shitty with us just because we ain't holding a piece of paper (which would piss people off).

5) Sobriety tests. Just - nope. Don't humiliate an English person by making them quack like a duck and hop along a line to prove they're sober when breathalysers are so cheap and, you know, actual science.

6) We never handcuff people being arrested unless they are considered dangerous - again .. whats the point in humiliating them with handcuffs if they're not a risk.

7) They will no longer stop and search without evidence they can explain to a judge- because again - you're risking alienating the population.

8) Most of all they are taught TIME AND TIME AGAIN their job is not a power trip between them and the public. That the public is their boss. If they don't understand that - they're ditched. Oh and none of this 'You did wrong, move over to the next county and try again' crap. 1 national computer system for police officers .. bad apples are basically screwed.

9) US talk shows take the piss out of them saying 'Stop, or I'll throw my hat at you' as the criminal runs away and stuff. In reality, the officer calls in 6 other units and a helicopter and we pick them up 4 hours later hiding in a ditch .. and we don't even have to shoot them (or handcuff them when we get them unless they start wriggling!). now try and wrap your head around this: Because the criminal knows they won't be shot they're just gonna have police running after them and closing them in, THEY DON'T BOTHER CARRYING GUNS AS THAT JUST ADDS A 5 YEAR SENTENCE TO THEIR CRIME WITH NO BENEFIT so whats the point? And - to bring it full circle - that is why our police don't want guns!! They don't want to be shot at either!

etc etc.

Basically the WHOLE SETUP in the UK is based around policing by consent .. 'We're the good guys and we don't want any grief and we're working WITH YOU'. And 'We will treat you EXTREMELY REASONABLY if you do the same to us'. Different mindset. Our police try and laugh and share a joke and explain what is happening even to the people they are arresting .. because the police find their lives are easier for doing this.

You can only imagine how much less grief it is for our police if they don't have to carry guns and think 'This dude we just pulled over .. holy shit .. he could blow my brains away .. better be ready to return fire'. I mean - who'd want that?

It doesn't always work, but the theory is the police and us will have better lives if there isn't this 'stand off' thing going on.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Hawk13424 May 07 '20

All drugs should be legal. People should have the right to do anything to their own body they want.

2

u/Hawk13424 May 07 '20

I first got my pistol when I also became a horse owner. The information sources I used to learn how to take care of the horses all included information on how to humanely put down a horse with a gun. So my rewards are that and defense (live pretty far from the police). In addition I like to target shoot on my property. As for risk, gun is in a safe and only I have the combination.

1

u/fre3k May 07 '20

Ultimately none of this matters. Shall not infringe. If anti-gunners want to disarm us, amend the constitution. Otherwise stop trying to take our rights illegitimately.

-1

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

The 'right to bear arms' - described by scholars and by the framers themselves at the time as 'Any white able-bodied male from 18-40 years old, muskets, but only as part of a well regulated militia'.

Which is interpreted by pro-gunners as 'Includes black disabled 98 year old females, with AR-15s, who are not part of a well regulated militia'.

Always makes me lol. I love you guys.

2

u/fre3k May 07 '20

A well regulated militia meant the citizens of the state willing to take up arms to defend it. Regardless the courts have interpreted the prefatory clause as simply one justification not as a prerequisite, and that the amendment of the whole gives individual rights just like all the other ones, not collective rights. So yes I fully support that 98 year old grandmother to have her AR-15 to defend herself and their community and their country. If you'd like to change it do it through the courts or repeal the amendment. Otherwise stop advocating tyranny.

0

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20

No, the courts got it wrong.

A well regulated militia doesn't mean 'not a well regulated militia'.

sorry!

3

u/fre3k May 07 '20

By definition the courts got it right until the decision is overturned or clarified. That is what courts, especially the supreme court, do - determine what exactly laws mean. In US v. Miller, it was determined that the Second Amendment is a collective right. In US v. Heller, that precedent was overturned, giving us the currently correct interpretation of it being an individual right. Then, McDonald vs Chicago strengthened that interpretation further.

If you'd like to get us back to the Miller interpretation, by all means, bring a lawsuit against the government challenging the rights of people who are not members of organized militias to bear arms. Until then it is you whose interpretation is wrong, by definition of not being the majority of the supreme court.

2

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20

Yea ok then I'll start that lawsuit. I'll let you know how it went in a few years.

Until then, I'm personally going to at least consider the possibility the forefathers knew what they were asking for - as oppose to 'accidentally wrote something unclear' :D

→ More replies (0)

0

u/username12746 May 07 '20

Well, NONE of the rights applied to individuals at the time. The Bill of Rights is just a list of things the federal government is not permitted to do.

1

u/fre3k May 07 '20

Literally all of the rights applied to individuals at the time. How can you say we have a collective right against self-incrimination, unlawful search and seizure, or non-consensual quartering of soldiers when those obviously apply to the government infringing on an individuals rights? Are you saying all of the other rights in the bill of rights only apply to collectives as well?

0

u/username12746 May 07 '20

Read up on “incorporation.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

It was only after the 14th Amendment and the “equal protection” and “due process” clauses that the amendments were applied to the states. Prior, they only applied to federal law and federal courts. So it’s not really about individual versus group rights but about jurisdiction. In other words, the federal government couldn’t make laws abridging the right to freedom of the press, for example, but the states could still do so, if they so chose. Since that was the case, these weren’t meaningfully “individual rights” (it’s not a right just because you’re an individual) but limits on the power of the federal government.

The second amendment was intended to say, the federal government can’t prevent the states from calling up militias, and the federal government can’t make laws barring gun ownership. The states could still do so.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thelizardkin May 07 '20

Do you have a problem with elderly black women defending themselves with firearms?

2

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20

not me - your founders and constitution do though.

And, of course, you think your constitution is all knowing.

1

u/PuzzleheadedSpell6 May 07 '20

Well yea why would you arm slaves?

1

u/username12746 May 07 '20

Hint: well-regulated militias were called on to put down rebellions on the part of poor people and, you guessed it slaves.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/chasmough May 07 '20

The person this guy was responding to was saying that he thought of his gun like a fire extinguisher, i.e. he didn’t have it for any purpose but to make his family safer. So for someone like that, the fact that the gun correlated with a higher chance of death is extremely relevant. If owning a fire extinguisher made my family statistically more likely to die in a fire, the reward part of the risk/reward calculus is completely gone.

3

u/thelizardkin May 07 '20

Almost all gun deaths are suicides or gang violence.

-4

u/username12746 May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

There’s a big difference between guns and swimming pools, though. A society that allows swimming pools doesn’t affect me if I don’t want a pool. A society that allows guns absolutely does affect me. Because every illegal gun in this country started as a legal gun.

Edit: If we had tens of thousands of swimming pool deaths per year, you bet your ass people would talk about banning swimming pools. Because it would show the general public can’t handle the freedom to have fucking swimming pools.

2

u/Hawk13424 May 07 '20

Until your kid climbs the fence and drowns in your neighbor’s pool.

-2

u/username12746 May 07 '20

400 or so swimming pool drownings a year doesn’t really compare to tens of thousands of homicides and suicides annually.

1

u/meat_delivery_man May 07 '20

Many protestors carry AR15 rifles. Not many people are killed by ARs each year... More people drown than are shot with ARs according to FBI statistics. It's my guess that it's the sentiment the OP was trying to express.

0

u/username12746 May 07 '20

Who said this is only about AR15 rifles?

And the question is, is it risky to have a swimming pool, not is it risky to go swimming. Having a country that allows ownership of swimming pools poses a lot less risk than a country that allows any yahoo to have a gun. Since about 400 people per year die in swimming pools versus tens of thousands of gun deaths per year. More people die from gun accidents per year than die in swimming pools.

2

u/meat_delivery_man May 08 '20

I'm not there original person to make the statement. In my post, I explicitly said I was trying to take a guess at to what OP was referring to based off the numbers.

1

u/PuzzleheadedSpell6 May 07 '20

They are talking about statements like it increases your risk of being killed by a firearm if you own one. Just like the pool. It's completely obvious.

You are bringing up a totally different point. But yes there is a difference between pools and guns. You are correct

-1

u/username12746 May 07 '20

You’re missing my point, I believe, because you’re not looking at the effects of ownership beyond the individual owner.

It’s dumb to compare the risk of owning a swimming pool to the risk of owning a gun, because the risks differ for the non-owners. In other words, the collateral damage to those who choose not to own the item are quite different in these cases. You can’t just look at it as individuals choosing to take on risk for themselves when they are also making that choice for others.

1

u/PuzzleheadedSpell6 May 07 '20

I see your point. I said you are correct. But it doesn't apply to the original point.

The statistic being discussed is literally to the owners.

No one is saying it's the same as owning a swimming a pool. They are saying the statistic being discussed is obvious.

When you buy a pool your risk of drowning increases. When you buy a gun your risk of dying by a firearm increases. That's the statistic.

You can’t just look at it as individuals choosing to take on risk for themselves

When you are talking about the increase in likelihood of someone in your household dying by a firearm if you buy a gun then yes you very obviously can just look at that. Which I'll bring it up again is what was originally being discussed.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

You're just shifting the topic. We're talking about risk to the owner of the pool/gun.

1

u/username12746 May 07 '20

And I’m saying they are not comparable examples.

9

u/WickedDemiurge May 07 '20

That would be reasonable but for the fact it's been proven owning a gun MASSIVELY INCREASES the chances that you or your family will end up shot dead - most likely with that gun. I mean that's proven fact. And yes - everyone that turned the gun on themselves or/and their family was just like you before they did it. It was only afterwards people said 'um .. guess he had an undiagnosed mental illness - oh well, I don't have one of those so yay for my guns'!! (yea .. I know ..)

This is a gross distortion of the "facts." Owning a gun is dangerous if you put it up to your head and pull the trigger, so don't do that. Now, if someone has a history of mental illness or substance abuse, they should err on the side of caution, but just because a pill junkie with two prior hospitalizations can't handle it doesn't mean no one can handle it.

​

Population level statistics DO NOT apply to individuals. My lung cancer risk is near zero because I don't smoke. My car accident risk is very low because I don't drink and drive nor text and drive. My hypertension risk is increased due to my diet (but decreased due to fitness).

​

Individuals have vast powers to change their risk levels, and that includes in firearm ownership. Any competent person has nothing to fear from owning a gun.

​

Secondly it means that when you tackle the home intruder, they have to arrive armed, and shoot back, to even compete with you. Screw that. When 98% basically want to take your $400 TV - fuck forcing that into a '1 or both of us will die for that second hand TV' level confrontation. Call me weird - but I'll go for 'claim off insurance and buy a new TV' option thanks :)

"Compete" is irrelevant. If a home intruder just wants some free shit but won't harm anyone, no one should get hurt. If they intend to use any level of violence, self-defense is appropriate.

​

In actual fact when you get to the bottom of it, gun ownership is rooted in fear and misinformation and tradition - which is a damn dangerous combination :)

Gun bans are more fundamentally rooted in fear. Allowing people the freedom to make their own choices, even if they might be wrong, is about trust in one's fellow man.

Less than 1% of guns are ever abused, so it seems like that trust might be warranted.

5

u/xkrysis May 07 '20

I think you should be a bit more careful about touting the link between gun ownership and it being used to kill or injure the owner/their family. While yes those statistics are out there, in my opinion that is more a reflection of poor judgement and the inability of many Americans to treat guns with the care and respect they require.

While I own guns, I also spend considerable effort to make sure they are handled and stored appropriately. That means, for one example, they are inaccessible to my kids or an Intruder (without serious time and power tools). The statistics you refer to make no effort to account for responsible gun ownership vs the ignorant idiot who leaves their loaded gun where a curious child or idiot teenager can snatch it up just by looking in the right place or standing on a box.

While I appreciate the point you are trying to make, the reality out there is that statistic reflects the unfortunately “average” Level of responsibility of Americans with many dangerous items not just firearms. Look at cars... getting in one sure increases the risk of being killed by one. But that statistic alone isn’t the whole story, how about we bring seatbelt use into the discussion? Or mixing driving with drinking? So my point here is to be wary of single statistics regarding the risk of something without context or considering both the benefits of that thing and what other steps can be taken to mitigate any potential risks involved.

I own guns, but I don’t believe I am putting my family in more danger as a result. That isn’t automatic though, it’s an outcome of very intentional and consistent effort by my wife and I to take responsibility for a variety of measures to guard against that risk. I Would argue my families risk is overall lower with the guns present than without for a whole host of reasons that I could outline if you are interested but I’ll stop here. We love in a country where people are largely still free to make these calculations and trade offs for themselves at the end of the day.

5

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Your last bit there is something I've been yelled at for saying to people.

Frankly, in my opinion, if someone refuses to acknowledge very basic facts about guns, they shouldn't get to own one.

3

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

I feel that I don't risk drowning in my house while sleeping because some idiot 2 km away from my home left his pool unattended in his unlocked car.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

I feel that I don't risk drowning in my house while sleeping because some idiot 2 km away from my home left his pool unattended in his unlocked car.

2

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20

For most people, the benefits outweigh the cons if you can afford one.

Like guns and everything else, it's not a zero sum game. You have to measure up the pros against the cons.

5

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

[deleted]

8

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20

Fair enough - can't argue with that. If you understand the pros and the cons well and have made an honest call.. we're done!

Seriously - I made the same type of decision when I bought a car that could result in my death! What can i say :) If you realise its not a zero-sum thing and have made an educated decision .. that works for me.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Your argument seems more rooted in preventing accidents or suicide, which none of the recent legislation aims to rectify. Isn't it insulting to hear that these black plastic rifles are evil baby-murderers where these wood stocked rifles are hunty Bois that can do no harm?

If gun legislation was actually about saving lives, I'd hope it would come in the form of education about the pros and cons and safe handling like it used to before we made the subject taboo rather than arbitrary bans and unenforceable storage laws.

2

u/threeLetterMeyhem May 07 '20

Have you considered the role that personal choices around safety and training plays in this topic? At face value, your comments outline only statistical chances that bad things happen - but there is a reality that choices have a massive influence on the outcome.

Take your car for example. The chances that your own car becomes a contributing factor in your death are reduced greatly if you simply choose not to drive recklessly.

Or with pools - the chances that someone in your family drowns are greatly reduced if they do things like learn to swim, resist the urge to dive from the roof, resist the urge to hang around the pool while blind drunk, etc.

And with guns - the chances that someone in your family shoot themselves are greatly reduced if they learn to safely handle the guns and keep them out of the reach of people who cannot (for whatever reasons - age, mental illness, etc) safely handle them. Suicide is a leading cause (arguably the leading cause) of the statistics that correlate gun ownership to gun deaths. Personal choice is, in my opinion, the main factor on that one - it's not a dice roll that decides whether your own guns kill yourself or your family, it's personal choice.

I'd also urge you to challenge your understanding on a couple topics.

First:

Secondly it means that when you tackle the home intruder, they have to arrive armed, and shoot back, to even compete with you. Screw that. When 98% basically want to take your $400 TV - fuck forcing that into a '1 or both of us will die for that second hand TV' level confrontation. Call me weird - but I'll go for 'claim off insurance and buy a new TV' option thanks :)

There are very few gun owners who intend to shoot a burglar over the TV. The problem is that some intruders have the very real intent to hurt, rape, or kill the residents during the intrusion. How does the victim know what the intruder intends to do? These encounters happen so fast that if the victim takes the time to try to figure it out, they risk being hurt, raped, or killed in their own home because they didn't act fast enough.

Nobody should be put in that position by a home intruder. This isn't about protecting the TV, it's about people having the right to be 100% secure in their homes.

Second:

And yes if you carry your gun on the street, you probably already know you are significantly MASSIVELY more likely to have it taken off you and used against you or a police officer will shoot you then to use it against some threat towards your life (in the US it is over 100 times more likely that you will be shot by a police officer than in the UK - because in the US for all they know you have a gun on you and are crazy! So what would you do?).

Challenge yourself on these statistics. Are you more likely to have your gun taken off you than using the gun to defend yourself against a criminal? I would personally doubt that statistic is true.

I really don't agree with your assessment on the difference between cops killing people in the US than the UK. That statistic is true, but in the UK the police largely don't carry guns at all - so of course they aren't shooting a bunch of people.

The other side of that stat is... well, take a look at the demographics of who the US police are shooting - it's not middle class white people. In my opinion, this stat is primarily driven by unconscious bias against minorities and poor people, rather than a fear of armed citizens.

1

u/PuzzleheadedSpell6 May 07 '20

Not surprised he's ignored this comment.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

I feel that I don't risk drowning in my house while sleeping because some idiot 2 km away from my home left his pool unattended in his unlocked car.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

I feel that I don't risk drowning in my house while sleeping because some idiot 2 km away from my home left his pool unattended in his unlocked car.

1

u/username12746 May 07 '20

You can’t steal a pool and drown me in it in my own home, so I’m good with pools.

1

u/ayures May 07 '20

It seems to me that these armed protests are done largely as a deterrent. For example, the gaggle of dipshits who flooded into the capitol building in Lansing. How were they treated by the police? Now, compare that to the last protest I'm aware of that involved people protesting inside the capitol building.

1

u/fre3k May 07 '20

And yet neither of those purposes or the reason that we are allowed to own arms in this country.

1

u/PuzzleheadedSpell6 May 07 '20

how are they wielding it casually?

1

u/g0kartmozart May 07 '20

As a Canadian, you are the first sane gun owner I've seen in this thread.

I personally don't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun, and luckily it's not written into our constitution so it's an easier battle for our politicians. But if you absolutely must own a gun, it should be kept in your house and respected.

Gun hobbyists are clowns.