| ▲ | soon_to_be_sb 21 hours ago |
| Guns makes lives better if you are the disadvantaged and is at the receiving end of the abuse by the powerful. It makes the playing field even for you, which makes your life better.. |
|
| ▲ | jagraff 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think that, in the history of the world since guns have been invented, they have mostly been used to the advantage of the powerful, not the powerless. |
| |
| ▲ | WillAdams 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a quote about that by Hillaire Belloc: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/355429-whatever-happens-we-... | |
| ▲ | roenxi 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is true of, I think, literally everything. Powerful people get first pick of things and go for higher quality so everything advantages them more than others. Modern powerful people are the most powerful in history thanks to technology. But guns are an equaliser. If powerful people let situations get too out of hand the personal risk to them is staggering. Guns make political or revenge-based assassinations relatively easy in a way knives do not. Arguably that is a bad thing, although experiments like the US suggest it is good in practice. | | |
| ▲ | ragequittah an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | To a large portion of the US population things got completely out of hand in several very terrible ways a while ago. I think despite that almost all of us would consider it an absolute tragedy if someone (or a group of people) tried to use a gun to solve problems. Luigi was an example where a group people cheered. But I suspect most people considered cold blooded murder of a man with a family pretty gross. Not to mention it solved exactly nothing. | |
| ▲ | Joker_vD 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Guns make political or revenge-based assassinations relatively easy in a way knives do not. Yes, the US has been very well known for its politicians (instead of e.g. middle schoolers) being routinely murdered by the gunners. Seriously. Even in the places like Brazil, or Sub-Saharan Africa, the "powerful people" rarely get killed by the lynching mob — it's almost always the hired guns sent by some other powerful people. So, no, the general populace very rarely gets to exercise its violence on the elite, historically speaking. Sometimes it happens, but that's an aberration of the normal way of things. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Lerc 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You could indeed argue that. I think that just enforced the argument that the means do not have a moral aspect, and it is the instances where they are used that causes the goodness or badness of the event. How they are used comes from decisions. You could also steal something and your life might be better for having a thing, possibly more so than how much worse it makes for the person you took it from. The thing that distinguishes theft from taxation is a societal convention. Adding consensus around how, what, and why things are taken makes it more consentual. Individuals may disagree with having to pay tax, but as a society it is generally agreed upon (even if the methods of agreeing a flawed) Things need to be an extreme case for guns to come into that process. It implicitly means the goal of reaching consensus has failed and one group is enforcing their will upon the other. That's usually not a good path for the disadvantaged because the powerful by definition have more capacity to enforce their will. Reaching consensus, whilst slower, is the one that supports the disadvantaged better. |
|
| ▲ | dzonga 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| yep - guns are a guarantee of liberty. |
| |
|
| ▲ | jakeydus 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Damn can't believe Samuel Colt is on HN |
|
| ▲ | Joker_vD 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Guns makes lives better if you are the disadvantaged and is at the receiving end of the abuse by the powerful. ...only if you have the gun, you know. Which the disadvantaged people tend not to. In fact, let's generalize your statement a bit: "Tools of power and coercion make lives better if you are the disadvantaged and is at the receiving end of the abuse by the powerful". No, they don't! They do the opposite for very obvious reasons. |
| |
| ▲ | soon_to_be_sb 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the disadvantaged people tend not to. 10 powerful men are coming to get your stuff from your home. It is easier to get a gun, than to find other 10 men who can take a hit for you (if you can do that, then you are powerful already). So it is not that disadvantaged people are drowning in guns, but it is comparatively easier to level the playing field by getting a gun, than doing it by other means. Often impossible. | | |
| ▲ | Joker_vD 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 10 powerful men are coming to get your stuff from your home. Like the US marshal with his team coming to evict you out of your house and seize your assets? They come armed, and they'll shoot you on the spot if you try to wave your own gun around. Or some Brazilian syndicate sending its goons to make an example out of you? I assure you, they too come armed and without a forenotice. > it is comparatively easier to level the playing field by getting a gun. Having a gun very marginally improves your chances of not being shot yourself, especially if you're facing an organized group, especially if it has experience in planned and organized violence. | |
| ▲ | ricardobeat 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Only if the ten men carry no guns. Hard to see how such a situation would arise if access is equal. | | |
| ▲ | ragequittah 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | But you don't understand I've seen both Commando and John Wick. In other news the gun in your house is far, far, far more likely to kill you or your loved ones than anyone else. Doubles your odds of being a victim of a homicide. Triples the odds of suicide. |
|
|
|
