Re: What do you think about gun control?
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:32 pm
Guns are most dangerous to the owner (suicide) and to the owner's children. Mass shootings represent a small number of fatalities by comparison - terrible and tragic, but the biggest issue is probably still children killing themselves/each other. It's a good argument for not owning a gun, or for having a VERY good gun safe. That's a hard problem to solve.
School shootings are probably a lot easier to solve: just raise the gun ownership age. This shouldn't be complicated. The compromise that seems to be making progress effectively does this.
There's no good reason young people need to have their own guns.
Having a gun in a dangerous situation also makes you more likely to be shot-- by police or criminals. Most criminals are not murderers (teo, you know this) and don't want to kill you, they want your stuff (often out of desperation because they need drugs, or have no money to pay rent, etc.). If you try to defend yourself with a gun they can quickly become murderers when they see you as a threat to their lives.
Also, for women with guns specifically, IIRC, it's more likely that an unarmed criminal will take it from her and use it against her.
Even if a gun did work and made criminals run away, it's unlikely that you would save money money by buying the gun (a couple hundred dollars) vs. having your pocket money stolen a couple times in your life. Your better investment is a second wallet with very little money in it and fake cards etc. Also weighs a lot less to carry around.
I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to know how to use and own a military grade gun locked up somewhere in case of a civil war or something, but there's already a term for that: Being part of a well regulated militia (which is the only thing explicitly constitutionally guaranteed, not personal gun ownership).
If Jews had their own militia that met through their social groups it would probably have meant a lot more than scattered disorganized gun ownership. However, Avskum's argument that it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference is probably true; Germany had enough soldiers to throw at its oppressive goals. A few thousand more Nazi soldier deaths wouldn't have necessarily resulted in a statistically significant change to the number of Jews and others who were killed. It would have a small chance though.
All of that said, there's a good argument for dropping gun control from the liberal agenda, because it generates a lot of resistance and isn't something with the largest harm reduction footprint in policy terms. Environmental and other human rights policies would probably get a lot farther without riling up conservatives to vote against Democrats for fear their guns will be taken.
School shootings are probably a lot easier to solve: just raise the gun ownership age. This shouldn't be complicated. The compromise that seems to be making progress effectively does this.
There's no good reason young people need to have their own guns.
Having a gun in a dangerous situation also makes you more likely to be shot-- by police or criminals. Most criminals are not murderers (teo, you know this) and don't want to kill you, they want your stuff (often out of desperation because they need drugs, or have no money to pay rent, etc.). If you try to defend yourself with a gun they can quickly become murderers when they see you as a threat to their lives.
Also, for women with guns specifically, IIRC, it's more likely that an unarmed criminal will take it from her and use it against her.
Even if a gun did work and made criminals run away, it's unlikely that you would save money money by buying the gun (a couple hundred dollars) vs. having your pocket money stolen a couple times in your life. Your better investment is a second wallet with very little money in it and fake cards etc. Also weighs a lot less to carry around.
I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to know how to use and own a military grade gun locked up somewhere in case of a civil war or something, but there's already a term for that: Being part of a well regulated militia (which is the only thing explicitly constitutionally guaranteed, not personal gun ownership).
If Jews had their own militia that met through their social groups it would probably have meant a lot more than scattered disorganized gun ownership. However, Avskum's argument that it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference is probably true; Germany had enough soldiers to throw at its oppressive goals. A few thousand more Nazi soldier deaths wouldn't have necessarily resulted in a statistically significant change to the number of Jews and others who were killed. It would have a small chance though.
All of that said, there's a good argument for dropping gun control from the liberal agenda, because it generates a lot of resistance and isn't something with the largest harm reduction footprint in policy terms. Environmental and other human rights policies would probably get a lot farther without riling up conservatives to vote against Democrats for fear their guns will be taken.