I guess you’d have no choice but to depend on others if you are unable to defend yourself. Sounds terrible, to me.

You have no choice but to depend on others, period. We are born into this world as dependants and we can only realise our autonomy by engaging in relations with others.

It's one of the fundamental dichotomies of human life: the desire for autonomy and the need for community.

As previously illustrated, community hasn’t faired so well to quell violence, or worse, has supported it. When communities come to head we call it war, for instance.

Weakness is relative, so there is no equaliser. — Echarmion

Sure there is. If I'm an elderly man, I'm weaker than a young burglar breaking into my home. However, if I have a gun, the playing field becomes much more level.

One of the tasks of living together is making sure that whoever has a physical advantage in any given situation cannot abuse that advantage.

But people do abuse the physical advantage they have over others, and the police can take awhile to show up.

Guns have no special standing here, they're just another factor to consider.

They don't have a special standing, but they do make it possible to defend my house very efficiently.

Ah yes, the old “equalizer” mythology. How quaint.

Must be fun living in the Wild West. What imagination.

Ah yes, the old “equalizer” mythology. How quaint.

Must be fun living in the Wild West. What imagination. — Mikie

There are over 300 million guns in the U.S. It's ridiculously easy for criminals to get their hands on one. Until that changes, I'm also going to have a gun, and I'm going to support other law-abiding citizens' rights to own guns.

That being said, I support restricting civilian guns to bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, with severe penalties for anyone illegally possessing guns.

I own a gun too. But the reality is that we don't live in the Wild West. Attacks we're concerned about generally happen without warning. If someone is gonna kill you, they don't challenge you to a duel. In fact the "good guy with a gun" myth shows that having a gun often has the opposite effect.

Sure there is. If I'm an elderly man, I'm weaker than a young burglar breaking into my home. However, if I have a gun, the playing field becomes much more level. — RogueAI

There's always a bigger fish though. There are countless possible advantages, not just muscle strength.

But people do abuse the physical advantage they have over others, and the police can take awhile to show up. — RogueAI

Yes. But then guns only help in a small subset of these situations. You cannot organise a society in such a way that there is zero risk. So again the question isn't "do guns give you a relative advantage sometimes" but: "of all the things you can do to improve society, why are you focused on guns specifically".

They don't have a special standing, but they do make it possible to defend my house very efficiently. — RogueAI

And is that advantage worth the price?

There are over 300 million guns in the U.S. It's ridiculously easy for criminals to get their hands on one. Until that changes, I'm also going to have a gun, and I'm going to support other law-abiding citizens' rights to own guns. — RogueAI

But isn't this ultimately a vicious circle?

Arguing about whether a home defense gun ACTUALLY makes one safer is missing the point. It's like arguing whether buying homeowners insurance makes you come out ahead dollarwise, ie whether you will spend more in premiums than receive in payouts.

The home insurance purchaser isn't hoping his home burns to the ground so he'll get more in a check to rebuild his home than he paid to the insurance company. He's "buying" peace of mind that IF his home is damaged, he's prepared to rebuild.

Similarly the purchaser of a home defense weapon is buying peace of mind, not actual statistical safety, just as I (hope to) give more to the insurance company than receive from it.

Exactly. It’s the stakes, not the odds. Given that in the US there are over a million violent crimes every year is it really hard to understand why someone would want to arm themselves to protect themselves and their loved ones?

Sure. But firearms also make committing murder much easier, so you also will get homicides that wouldn't have occured without the guns.

You get two offsetting effects. There is a deterrence and self defense effect, but also the effect of allowing people to commit murder much easier.

On the whole, the ability to kill people easier (and to accidently kill bystanders while carrying out an attack) seems to outweigh the deterrence and self-defense effect. There is plenty of evidence to support the contention that, all else equal "fewer guns = fewer murders."

And that seems to me like a pretty good argument for gun control. Moreover, the types of restrictions you put on fire arms can also shift the degree to which guns are used for self-defense versus homicides. Fairly banal firearms regulations still do plenty to keep guns out of the hands of the most unstable citizens.

I think that it should be as hard as possible to get guns. I think there should be mandatory psych evaluations for the buyer and the immediate family. I don't think that taking the peoples guns will do anything but make the government more powerful and make it easier for people to commit crime. After all people smuggle millions of drugs into this country everyday so I don't see how it will be different with guns. Also I don't feel that mass shootings it is a mainly a gun issue, if you have someone who wants to create panic it will switch from guns to something else. So it is a better way to combat mass shootings by understanding the signs and stopping it before it happens rather than taking peoples ability to defend themselves.

Also I don't feel that mass shootings it is a mainly a gun issue, if you have someone who wants to create panic it will switch from guns to something else. So it is a better way to combat mass shootings by understanding the signs and stopping it before it happens rather than taking peoples ability to defend themselves. — Lexa

Mass shootings not mainly a gun issue? And are you saying that because the bad guy will find some way to be bad, that he should have a gun anyway?

As to "peoples ability to defend themselves," please translate into English. I think you're making several mistakes. One is confusing "people" with "person"; the other the assumption that people or a person, having a gun constitutes the ability to defend. But I agree with the rest, that guns should be hard to get, own, and have; also with the above suggestion on restrictions on types of guns. And I'll go further and suggest that every gun have a registered responsible owner, such that if a crime is committed with it, he or she - the owner - will risk legal penalty.

And are you saying that because the bad guy will find some way to be bad, that he should have a gun anyway? — tim wood

No thats not what i'm saying at all, what i'm saying is that it is an environment and mental health issue, if a person who will do a mass shooting doesn't have a gun, that mass shooting will turn into a mass bombing, or fire, etc. So it would be smarter to try and solve the mental health and environment issue, rather than the gun issue.

he other the assumption that people or a person, having a gun constitutes the ability to defend. — tim wood

Doesn't it though? If you and me get robbed, and I have a gun and you don't, who is in a better position to defend themselves? If someone is going to break into a house, and they know one owns a gun and the other doesn't, what house do you think they will try and break into? Better weapons means that I can defend myself better if need be. Just like a ufc fighter can defend themself better than someone who doesn't train because there ability to use there body as a weapon is better.

Better weapons means that I can defend myself better if need be. — Lexa

More weapons will mean that the robber surely will have a gun, for his personal protection.

I agree that fewer guns = fewer murders. And if someone pondering the purchase of a home defense weapon could by declining would substantively reduce the amount of guns in their community by their declining, your observation would be relevant.

If one option was going back in time when US gun numbers were much less and capping at that number, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If making AR15s never having been sold was a time travel option, I'd be for that.

Alas, the real question is where to go from the actual current state.

If you and me get robbed, and I have a gun and you don't, who is in a better position to defend themselves? — Lexa

If having it is the sole criterion and it's robbery, and depending on what you mean by "defend themselves," I'd say the fellow without the gun.

If, however, the fellow is well-trained and practiced, his gun properly functional, and if he can be responsible for whatever his bullet hits, and he is at risk and he has no other choice, then that man gets a gun if he wants one. The trouble with most gun-advocacy that I see and hear is that it is based on fantasy, magical thinking, and in the US a just-plain-stupid "understanding" of the 2d amendment.

Extremely distressing story in today's Washington Post with graphic photographs of what AR-15 weapons do when fired in schools and churches (link provided).

Mass shootings involving AR-15s have become a recurring American nightmare.

The weapon, easy to operate and widely available, is now used more than any other in the country’s deadliest mass killings.

Fired by the dozens or hundreds in rapid succession, bullets from AR-15s have blasted through classroom doors and walls. They have shredded theater seats and splintered wooden church pews. They have mangled human bodies and, in a matter of seconds, shattered the lives of people attending a concert, shopping on a Saturday afternoon, going out with friends and family, working in their offices and worshiping at church and synagogue. They have killed first-graders, teenagers, mothers, fathers and grandparents. — Washington Post

Don't expect any action from American politicians, though. They seem to regard it as the price worth paying for the constitutional rights to bear arms.

The myth of the 'good guy with a gun' has no stats to back it up. For every legitimate discharge of a weapon in defense or the upholding of the law, there are many more improper deaths, either by suicide or homicide. 'In 2018, for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there were 34 gun homicides, 82 gun suicides, and two unintentional gun deaths' (source).

That's a fair point. The consideration for an individual is different than that of the policymaker.

Slightly related point: freezing the sale of new automatic weapons did seem to have the effect of getting them all into the hands of people who are highly unlikely to use them in homicides it seems. America still has a lot of automatic weapons floating out there, but now they are quite rare and expensive. It takes a lot of work to own one and now they are rarely ever used in crimes. I do think this is related to the high cost and their status as collectors items instead of "weapons."

Well the biggest risk (by far) of firearms is making suicide attempts more likely to be lethal. Thus if there is someone in your household who is at any risk of a suicide attempt, don't have a firearm in your home. If noone in the household attempts to take their life although accidents and homicide are statistical possibilities, they aren't dramatic and in my opinion don't warrant not buying a firearm if you want to target shoot, hunt or protect your home.

After all people smuggle millions of drugs into this country everyday so I don't see how it will be different with guns. — Lexa

The comparison with drugs ends up very misleading, because it seems to be the case that, where guns are not common, a gun is often a liability for anyone engaged in criminal activity.

The main reason that repression has been ineffective at eliminating the drug trade is that the demand for drugs is inflexible. People addicted to drugs will do whatever it takes, and addiction is very profitable for the sellers.

No such dynamic exists for guns. Most organised crime is preoccupied with making money and staying undetected (or unmolested). In a country where guns are illegal, anyone who relies on criminal activity for their income will think very hard before taking a gun out on the street. Being caught with a gun in a country with strict gun control is one of the best ways to get a whole lot of law enforcement attention on you.

And most of the things these people do don't benefit particularly from being armed. The only area where guns are both a significant advantage and are actually used is in gang-on-gang violence, or occasionally internal disputes / acts of revenge.

On the other hand petty criminals might wish to be armed, but petty crime is already a high risk - low reward kind of deal a lot of the time. The people involved usually carry psychological issues like addiction or are otherwise marginalised. They don't generally have the resources to get a gun.

So the chilling effect of gun control on armed crime is overall much more effective than the one on illegal drugs.

I buy the idea that for many - waay too many - men, a gun is a surrogate penis, with almost all the rights, benefits, pleasures appurtenant thereto. And no seller willingly will forego that market. I am not a gun owner, nor pro-gun, but a fantasy of mine is to have custom made a large leather holster, maybe in pink, that will carry my gun (which I do not have or own) projecting outward like a giant phallus, and then wear it in a legal open-carry state. Of course it would be obscene, but the challenge would be for folks to make explicit just why it is obscene - the ultimately inescapable conclusion being that guns themselves, except in their proper sphere of action and use, are obscene - and I know that you know what ob-skena means; most folks won't, but they can research it.

My own view is that guns are tools, but that (should) require clearing a whole lot of lower and higher hurdles before being owned, had, possessed, carried, used - as with automobiles. And the mindless claims of any absolute right being just that: mindless.

I own guns and I've always been a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I'm also a Democrat and a liberal, so I think I can see both sides of the argument. I think the only path forward is to focus on actual facts and statistics, not kneejerk emotional reactions. Both sides tend to get emotional, very quickly, when the American gun control issue gets brought up. So, I think the first thing to do is to attempt to set aside one's emotions and focus on the numbers and the facts. From what I've read, the US homicide rate with guns is 26 times higher than -- on average -- other high income countries. My first question is posed to other gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment: Do you think this is acceptable, and if not, what do you propose we do to lower it? I really want to hear from gun owners on this.

https://everytownresearch.org/graph/the-u-s-gun-homicide-rate-is-26-times-that-of-other-high-income-countries/

It’s not the guns. There are more guns in the US today than ever before yet crime and murder are the lowest they’ve been since their peak in the 1990s. Clearly there is something deeper at work than the mere existence of firearms. Not only that but even if you remove firearm homicides the US still has a higher homicide rate than most developed countries. Clearly it isn’t firearms making Americans so violent. The same goes for mass shootings. Firearms have always been readily accessible in the US yet mass shootings weren’t common in the past like they are today despite gun laws being less strict to the point you could order rifles through the mail and virtually every school had shooting clubs. Here is the chart detailing homicide rates for high income countries (https://ibb.co/2yd4Rzz).

As for the last part I don’t find gun violence or any kind of violence acceptable. I know others have said this but I think the obvious answer isn’t gun control but addressing the fundamental causes behind crime, violence, suicide etc. What makes someone buy a gun and go on a killing spree at a school? What makes someone kill their whole family and then themselves? What makes someone join a gang and kill rival gang members and turn their neighborhood into a war zone? What makes someone rob people at gunpoint? What makes someone kill their friend after a heated argument and so on and so on? From my research you’ll have much better luck reducing gun violence by addressing poverty, the war on drugs, mental health, poor education, poor infrastructure, hopelessness and the various other systemic issues that haunt our society than even more ineffectual gun control that only serves to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

What about passing laws to disarm domestic abusers?

https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/

The latest mass-shooting episode has just been reported - Multiple Victims in New Hampshire Psychiatric Hospital.

It’s not the guns. There are more guns in the US today than ever before yet crime and murder are the lowest they’ve been since their peak in the 1990s. — Captain Homicide

It is the guns. Which is why the US is unique in its mass shootings, for example. "Crime and murder" are at their lowest -- so robberies and car thefts are lower, and that's supposed to prove something? Also, homicides are down since 1981, yes. The share of those homicides where guns were used? 80% or more.

We have more guns than people and very lax regulations. Hence the gun violence, including mass shootings occurring nearly every day.

Also, the number of guns in this country has DRAMATICALLY increased, outnumbering population around 2007. So the statement "Firearms have always been readily accessible" is misleading.

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total/

Your argument is that nothing is wrong, or if it is, it's not guns. Then what is is? We gotta bust out the NRA-approved "mental health" talking point?

It’s not the guns. — Captain Homicide

I'll bet that every cause-of-death report for every person ever killed by being shot reads that he or she was killed by gunfire - however that's expressed in such reports. For you to say, "It's not the guns," is disgusting. As it sits, you are at the absolute best - at very best - merely contemptible. It might be educational for you to lose a loved one to a gun and have someone say to you, "it wasn't the gun." Nothing to wish on anyone, but just think about it, if you can.

I think the nuance here is that guns with the capacity to kill large numbers of people in a very short amount of time are much more readily available in the USA than in many other developed countries. It's true that guns don't kill people, it is people that kill people... But if you are mentally unwell or otherwise motivated to commit homicide in another country such as the UK you may find out a way to commit mass murder but it will be more difficult. And the statistics and data bears that out. I am a gun owner and like and enjoy my guns, plus I obey the law and gun etiquette as I believe the vast majority of other gun owners do. Also, I recognize that in the USA we have a particular history with Britain attempting to disarm us and failing do so which made all the difference in the Revolutionary War, and this figures largely in the American psyche. Our nation was born out of a distrust of government and tyranny, with a deep rooted trust instead in the right of common people able to defend themselves against such things. But I think we also have to consider changes over time and the threats that we are dealing with now, not over two centuries ago, and consider data and facts. As far as limiting what arms American civilians have a right to, we already have limits as it is illegal to have your own chemical weapons, explosive devices, a nuclear device, etc. There are limits to the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it is unreasonable to be able to have a fact-based discussion about where those limits should be. Being able to defend yourself is a reasonable expectation, but I think it needs to be balanced against the realities of public safety. I am hoping that other gun owners (of which I am one) and conservatives (of which I am not one but have many friends and family who are) will join into good faith efforts to come up with solutions on how to deal with the American problem of gun violence, which I personally feel is at unacceptable levels.