| |
| ▲ | zahlman 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The reason you're getting the interactions you are is because you set up a false dichotomy. Kirk's moral calculus involves accepting that possibly some more people will die, beyond what would happen otherwise, in order to guarantee what he considers an essential right to everyone. This is perfectly compatible with "caring about lives". It's interesting that you mention driver's licenses. Would you say that intellectual consistency would require a "pro-lifer" to be in favour of nobody being allowed to own a car? After all, sometimes fatal driving accidents occur. | | |
| ▲ | Nervhq 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh wow no reply to your excellent car analogy. This is my shocked face. |
| |
| ▲ | nailer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | He did care about lives. Allowing some evil from gun deaths is the price of allowing a population to arm themselves. At the time he made the point that allowing some road deaths is worth allowing the population to drive. It doesn’t mean he endorses road death either. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > the price of allowing a population to arm themselves It is very hard for someone living in the UK to understand things from the US context. It just comes across as bizarre that people accept that school children will relatively frequently die for this. I do not feel impelled at all to own a gun. It isn't something that I ever think about. So when you say things like the phrase above, it is very alien to most people from the UK. We just don't understand what the benefits are of owning guns that justify the negatives. By the way, this isn't an attack, it is just me sharing a state of mind with you. | | |
| ▲ | nailer 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure. I lived in the UK for 15 years, and have lived in the US for 2. In London, someone grabs your phone, threatens to take your watch with a machete, or tries to rape your child. In New York someone marches down the street wanting to punch anyone that gets close. You let yourself be victimised and then report it. In Texas, they generally don't do these things because they might get shot. People defend themselves. In exchange, we accept there will be some unwanted violence. Kirk made an analogy here: we don't want road deaths, yet we don't ban cars. We don't want school shootings, but we don't ban guns. South Africans in London have similar perspectives regarding being able to defend themselves. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | London has got worse, that is true. Or at least, that is the impression you get from the media. Personally, I lived in central London for years and didn't feel unsafe. But the rest of the UK is extremely safe. Compared to the US? Very! And we don' have guns to defend ourselves. How does that work? And it is the same in many, many countries that don't have guns - a lot safer than the US. So that argument for guns just doesn't work. There must be something deeper to it. It must really be something that triggers a deeper response in people. | | |
| ▲ | johnisgood 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | London has gotten worse, do you think this is debatable today? Plus I do not think that the "I feel safe" has much merit. It has some, but not that much. What if I told you I did not feel safe in London? You felt safe in some area, I did not feel safe in some other. I do not think this conversation would be fruitful if we focused on this alone. Check the statistics[1] with regarding to robbing, knife crimes, homelessness, and so on. Perhaps that is a better starting point? I have been told by many locals to not wear an expensive watch around designer stores, or touristic hotspots because robbery happens on a daily basis, it depends on the time of the day and which day it is, of course. I have watched many YouTubers visiting London as well and they tell quite the story, too. [1] See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44914081 | |
| ▲ | nailer 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I had two terrorist attacks on my neighbourhood (London bridge) and one on the way to work (Westminster bridge) in fifteen years. If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You're a programmer. You understand statistics. I think your ideology is clouding your ability to talk about this honestly. From the very casual look I took, you're 4 times more likely to die as a result of violent crime in the US than the UK. So picking these incidents and citing them as a reason for owning guns, while ignoring the whole picture strikes me as dishonest. | | |
| ▲ | johnisgood 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment. In any case, I think the argument that was brought forward in favor of guns does not hold true universally for every places. For example, in Hungary, you do not need guns as a deterrent. Perhaps London would benefit from it, I actually have no idea and I do not know if I could have any way of telling. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer a day ago | parent [-] | | > I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment. It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe. Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK. I live in the UK. It is objectively safer to live in the UK where we are not allowed to own guns. To us, it is absurd to claim we need guns to be safer when we look at what actually happens in the US as a result of guns. I don't think this is really a controversial take. That is why the argument for gun ownership actually happens at a deeper level in the psyche. | | |
| ▲ | johnisgood a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It is not a cherry-picked example at all. That is the essence of the mentality. It is used as a deterrent. If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot. I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now? I am Eastern European, no guns here either, and as I said, it may not universally apply to all countries, or even cities within one country. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer a day ago | parent [-] | | > I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now? Sure, I can read English, I can understand the actual English words you're typing and the point you're trying to make. I just think it isn't true, and an honest reading of statistics would show that. But I don't think we're going to get honesty here. | | |
| ▲ | johnisgood a day ago | parent [-] | | You want statistics? Check out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45240145. This does not imply what I said though, it just confirms that more guns does not imply more gun violence. You did not leave an answer to "If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot." though. You wanted to know the mentality behind it, and this is the mentality behind it, so now you know why people say and believe these things. As I previously have said, this probably cannot be universally applied to all countries, but it theoretically could be, especially if we consider the fact that "more guns -> more gun violence" is just simply not true. I have a feeling it is a cultural thing. How come Serbia (among other countries) have lots of guns yet no firearm-related violence? Many other countries have much less guns per 100 people (as per statistics), yet gun violence is through the roof. We have to look at it from many different aspects. We need ask ourselves "why?" or "why that is?", what are the differences? What are the cultural differences? Just to be sure, I am not in favor of guns, but I do believe in that guns can be a deterrent in some places at the very least, and we know that more guns do not lead to more firearm-related homicides, so theoretically it could work in some or many places. I do not know much about Serbia. I wonder how come they have lots of guns yet barely any related crimes. |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | nailer a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe. It obviously makes the argument that Texas isn’t New York or London and has little street crime, as a result of gun ownership. You wanted to understand the mentality? That’s the mentality. No road men in Austin. > Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK. Yes you can. That’s a fine argument, I agree with it. I’ve made comments about not wanting to die because someone had a bad day earlier in this thread supporting exactly this argument. You’re arguing with someone else rather than reading my responses. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nailer 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What ideology? I thought we were having a civil discussion of how the UK compares to the US. The US has a lot of violent cities, I live in NY (in a very good area) and there’s still more street violence than you’d expect in a similar area in London. But that’s a coastal city. People don’t have guns here. If someone walked down the street in Austin threatening to kill people that wouldn’t happen. Honestly. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you're making disingenuous arguments, which is why I attributed it to ideology. But you're correct, this just started off with a casual comment from me, so I don't think I should be going into that territory, apologies. | | |
| ▲ | nailer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write. I’m not sure if I have an answer one way or the other - I’d like it if I could buy milk in NY without someone threatening violence, and don’t think it’s right for jihadists to stand in the middle of London saying they’ll kill all the jews without the police doing anything, but I also don’t want to live somewhere where someone snaps and they have access to an automatic weapon. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer a day ago | parent [-] | | > Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write. That the US is safer than other places because it has guns? I guess you can sincerely believe that, but the facts say something else. | | |
| ▲ | johnisgood a day ago | parent | next [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... Check out both tables and you will see that the facts do not say what you think they say, at all. Homicide rates by firearm per 100,000 inhabitants (2017): Jamaica - 47.857
United States - 3.342
Serbia - 0.415
Ranking by country for civilian-held firearms per 100 population (2017): Jamaica - 8.8
United States - 120.5
Serbia - 39.1
Those are just to compare three countries, but you will see a similar trend for all other countries.It shows that Serbia has loads of guns, yet barely any firearm-related homicides, whereas Jamaica has much less guns, yet homicide rates by firearm are way higher than the US. Thus, the statement that "More guns -> More gun-related violence" is evidently false. | |
| ▲ | nailer a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tim333 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I live in central London. It mostly feels safe although I did get a phone snatched once. I also visited Austin Texas and spent a night staying in the center on 6th street and didn't feel safe. Aggressive black guys shouting and stuff. I googled that location when I got to the lodging and someone was shot there a year earlier. I guess it depends the area but I wouldn't say guns have made Texas a haven of peace. |
| |
| ▲ | MisterMower a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bingo. Same logic applies to car jackings or home invasions. Just the fact that the next potential victim could be armed and many states have laws that allow victims to use lethal force to defend themselves has a massive deterrent effect. |
|
| |
| ▲ | croes 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Interesting metaphor because we changed the cars to make them safer, improved the roads, added speed limits and added requirements to get a driver license. What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns? According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts but cared about lives. I doubt that he thought like that when it came to road safety. | | |
| ▲ | nailer 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns? Kirk's point was that we do for guns (domestic violence etc red flags). But like cars we don't ban them. > According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts No. | | |
| ▲ | croes 3 days ago | parent [-] | | So he was pro mandatory weapon training, limits on gun power and capacity? That would be the equivalent of what we did against traffic deaths. Red flags have the disadvantage they come after the damage. |
|
| |
| ▲ | yencabulator 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | nailer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | He was really kind to people that didn’t vote his way, consistently, on video. Posting him quoting the bible doesn’t change that. And part of being kind to people is letting them know when they make choices that aren’t in their own interests, which includes trans identifying people. |
| |
| ▲ | nativespecies 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | Yeul 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | johnisgood 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun. I do not think that he was against regulation, and keep in mind that criminals inherently do not care about gun laws or regulation. |
|
