This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Gun Rights are Civilization Rights
I believe, if you don't trust an independent adult to have a firearm you ultimately don't trust them enough to be in the same civilization or society as you.
There are three categories of people that nearly everyone agrees should not be allowed to own a firearm:
And you'll notice we generally don't trust these categories of people with much of anything. The first two categories of people we insist on them having guardians, or being wards of the state. The third category of people we imprison.
There are two major arguments against gun rights that I think hold the most salience for people.
Argument One: Guns are Dangerous and Unnecessary
They are undoubtedly dangerous. Their purpose is to be a weapon. But there are other things that are dangerous that we don't ban. Cars can be used to achieve mass casualty events. Bombs can be made with some commonly available materials. These other things are rarely labelled as "unnecessary" though. There are also plenty of "unnecessary" things that we don't ban. Plenty of purely recreational items and services exist. Jet skis, theme parks, cruises, large houses, etc (some of these things are even dangerous). Only the most hardcore socialists and communists want to take away all the fun toys.
There is an argument that gun advocates make that gun rights are necessary to keep the government in check. I generally like this argument, and think it is demonstrated by the level of free speech rights in places like Great Britain where guns have been successfully banned for most private "citizens".
But I'll grant for the sake of argument that guns are totally "unnecessary". And that it is the special combination of Dangerous+Unnecessary that leads people to want to ban it. Since other categories of things like Safe+Unnecessary or Dangerous+Necessary go largely unbanned and untouched.
I think the widespread existence of many "Dangerous+Necessary" demonstrates that we can trust most adults to handle dangerous things in a responsible way. We can't trust them 100% of the time. And we can't trust that there won't sometimes be negligence.
The "unnecessary" component of the argument is also a scary slippery slope to be on. People have different desires and wants. There are I think two steady states of being in regards to "unnecessary" things. Either you let everyone decide for themselves on every topic. Or you have a central authority that decides on everything for everyone. If you are willing to bite that bullet, keep in mind that it will not necessarily be you deciding what is necessary and what is not. I believe it is fully possible for such a bureaucracy to mercilessly strip every single joy out of life, and they'll fully believe they are making your life better. You'll eventually be sad enough that you'll come to the second main argument against gun rights:
Argument Two: Guns enable easier suicide
I don't have the data on hand, and I don't really want to get into an argument about said data. But it is my understanding that there is a noticeable and undeniable effect of guns on male suicide rates. This makes intuitive sense to me. Many methods of suicide require you to actively torture yourself for a short time period, drowning, hanging, cutting yourself, jumping from a very tall building etc. Or they present a chance of a failed suicide attempt that leaves you heavily injured, like jumping from not high enough, or getting in front of a moving vehicle, or pills. Guns make the attempt a more sure thing, and present an option that does not involve torturing yourself.
Something about this whole approach to suicide prevention feels very wrong. On an individual basis I think you should not commit suicide, and if someone can be talked out of suicide they generally should be talked out of it. But there are also some cases where I believe it is very cruel to prevent suicide. Medical cases for sure. But there are also people who have drawn a shit straw in life in too many ways. A bit too dumb, constant low level bad health, unable to figure out how to love or be loved, etc. A life of quiet misery. They should have an exit option, and they should have one that doesn't require them to torture themselves on the way out.
Civilization is one big nebulous agreement we have that helps us get along. But I think saying "you can't leave this agreement without being tortured", is just evil.
Forbidding gun ownership means forbidding exit, and it means you lack trust in others to such a degree that it breaks down many of the assumptions we already have about the rights and responsibilities of adults in society.
Some of the implications of my argument that I am already aware of and fine with:
Some areas that I left unaddressed to save space:
Edit: lots of good responses. I've read all of them but I'm unlikely to respond. Most of the responses were better thought out than my original post. I sometimes just have ideas or arguments kicking around in my head that need to be spilled onto paper. And I think better in response to what others say so this has helped me refine my thoughts on the subject a great deal. That synthesis of thought might end up in a future thread.
"The blade itself incites to deeds of violence" - Joe Abercrombie paraphrasing Homer.
When I cross the border to the states, there's often a moment of shock upon seeing someone with a gun on their hip going about their day in a gas station, or restaurant, or shopping mall. It is, as you say, "dangerous and unnecessary", as dangerous and unnecessary as if they had brought a leashed tiger, or a running chainsaw. My brain can't ignore it. Pay attention to that! That could KILL you! it shrieks, and won't let me forget. It's the same forced attention I get around high cliffs, or heavy machinery, or a busy highway. I might know that the leashed tiger is tame. I might be aware that the running chainsaw has a safety guard, but I can't put it out of mind.
The possibility of a gun being used weighs on me, and I think on the bearer, even if they think it doesn't. It's there, physically weighing on them, tugging at their belt or ankle, or purse, reminding them every time they move that it is an option, a choice in the dialogue tree. And because it's an option, it changes every interaction into a (potential) life or death confrontation. Yes, there are circumstances under which I am prepared to kill you. They've already had that conversation with themselves, already decided that such circumstances exist and could arise today, at this Applebee's Neighborhood Grill.
I don't want to come off as too anti-gun. I like guns well enough. They're neat. I've shot them. It's just that I think we do it better in Canada (modulo silly model bans), where you can't be carrying weapons on that side of the pomerium.
This seems like a you problem. People who legally carry have a minuscule crime rate. The reason that person has a gun at Applebees is because he had it before he got to Applebees and it is more convenient and safe for him to bring it in then to leave it in the car or have a special car gun safe that he locks it in before leaving the car. You dont really factor into said person's mind at all.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a wild comparison; the gun is inert and has no volition of its own. Nor is it always in a state of active danger like the running chainsaw. Firing a gun is not something that is done by failing to pay sufficient attention to the gun - it requires volition and active intent across several particular bodily motions to draw, aim, turn off a safety, and fire a gun, just like it would to grab someone by the head and try to break their neck, or try to stab someone with a knife or pen, etc.
The sad but accurate truth is that crimes of passion are common to mankind (men especially but occasionally women too). And when talking passion and anger, it actually is quite true that even small impediments can help reduce rates. I think when talking about society-wide gun policy, it makes sense to weigh the pros and cons; the typical gun-carry argument is what, that in case a mass shooting happens you can step in? Sure, fine, but compare the number of those cases to cases where an easily accessible gun leads to a death of passion, and I think the latter case is a clear winner.
I think being around open carry guns should be in the same "nervousness" category as crossing a busy street, or driving a car through a heavy pedestrian area. So being around a carrier gives a bit of an edge of seriousness, and demands reasonable attention. Enough to be annoying and noticeable, I think, and mildly unpleasant. Chainsaw is probably a bit too far a comparison in my view because of the intentionality, but lethality is far different for guns than basically any other mundane item (pens? please. except maybe knives but in the US that's not super common knowledge) so it's not an irredeemable one.
Mind you I personally have two main opinions on guns: one, that if we want to significantly change gun laws, we probably need an actual constitutional amendment, and two that insofar as the constitution allows* getting a gun should be a medium annoyance, no more no less. Requirements that are de facto bans are stupid or illegal. I like well-written red flag laws. I'd love for there to be a minimum licensure, think learner's driving permit. An interesting idea would be to also ask for a character reference or two, essentially someone vouching for the gun owner? That could create some desirable social externalities. I love being careful about buying and selling laws, though don't think an actual permanent registry or record is needed.
* (edit) I'm not totally convinced by the argument that any gun control is proscribed Constitutionally. To me the regulated-militia bit implies a strong skepticism of loose cannons and even an outright endorsement of some loose degree of government (perhaps suitably local) control. The text more or less says because of this reason, then there is a right to bear arms, and so I think it logically follows that if the reason is not satisfied, then there is no such right. A more extreme version of this argument I haven't seen much suggests that a properly accountable municipal police force is essentially filling the militia role, thus there's not even an individual right provided the rationale holds. I don't think I quite endorse that, but on factual grounds (i.e. police don't fill the role) not rhetorical ones. Practically speaking for the idea of a militia to work, you probably need an individual right, but I think states have some decent leeway there as to how they get that done, so I wouldn't call it a requirement. Which is also worth mentioning as national gun laws should never be the primary focus. Again, if you don't like it (either because you want more or less than that)? Yep, constitutional amendment, only way. Sucks but them's the breaks.
In other words, Heller is wrong (well, right on the conclusion but partially wrong on the reasoning). Or that it's correct but the phrase in 1(b) "so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved" holds more weight than the SC gave it credit for, i.e. states as holders of responsibility for militia regulation can do any law that doesn't result in a de facto infringement on the idea of a citizen militia, and the DC handgun ban clearly was an infringement.
There has been linguistic drift; at the time of the founding, the word "regulated" meant "functioning," and in the concept of a militia - which the founders generally intended to be the primary American military force to the exclusion of standing armies - meant well-equipped, trained, and disciplined. [Edit: the militia was supposed to supply their own weapons, or draw from privately-stocked and -maintained armories. Hence why ensuring that the militia would be well-armed would require the private ownership and carrying of military arms]
As far as I'm concerned the 2nd Amendment, properly understood, requires every citizen to own, maintain, and drill with M4s and other military weapons, a la Switzerland. However, practically the champions of militia vs. a permanent, professional military establishment lost for good after WWII.
I'm going to need a citation there. I've also seen that claim but I believe that to be a modern projection/cope rather than an actual scholarly argument. 1785 dictionary says:
To RE'GULATE. v.a. [regula, Lat.]
To adjust by rule or method. Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.
To direct. Regulate the patient in his manner of living. Wiseman. Ev’n goddesses are women; and no wife Has pow’r to regulate her husband’s life. Dryden.
I agree to an extent: part of the concern with the Articles of Confederation was that they had discovered early flaws with the national army (originally it was a pure volunteer state by state basis kind of thing IIRC), and so wanted it to be stronger but not so strong that it could crush legitimate internal dissent. It's also true that at least a good chunk of the arms were assumed to be (or even encouraged to be as some states even incentivized such) produced on an individual basis. It's also true that there was often a distinction made between an organized militia that was directed, drilled, and with some kind of chain of command and unorganized militias that were more like mobs, so it's not as if the concept is all wrong.
Despite all of that being true, I want to emphasize that last bit there. The intention was never that random groups should spontaneously rise up formed from ad-hoc combinations of gun-toting individuals! The intention was that localized governance was sufficiently democratic that they could decide to take collective action and associate with ad-hoc combinations of other cities and states to overthrow an overbearing national (or international) government. The distinction is quite crucial there! While I allow some nuance as to how states decide to implement this, the state was in charge at the end of the day of regulating its militias. Drilling and organizing and making them effective yes, but also deciding the proper shape, leadership, and call to action! While an individual owning firearms is useful it's still a bit incidental, because the goal the 2nd Amendment clearly states is merely that militias are capable of protecting liberty from tyranny.
In that context, a state can be somewhat strict in its regulation if the core purpose is accomplished. The test is all about core purpose, but some people have substituted an individual right-test in its place. This is subtly wrong. A state could probably choose to implement its core militia duty via individual gun-rights, but is not compelled to do so. A more modern-left state may well decide to be more discerning provided they meet the end goal. In practice, these might end up appearing similar, but they don't have to be!
Shay's Rebellion actually illustrates this, taking place in the Confederation period. Informal and ad-hoc groups of farmers and former soldiers banded together to revolt. They were not official local militias! In fact they raised themselves up in parallel to actual state legal authority, in defiance of such. Remember that that is where a lot of the power lay - the revolutionary Congress was formed from state delegations, in almost all cases with official representation!! That's where their legitimacy came from! Many people today fail to notice that, it wasn't an "extra-legal" effort, the original Revolution proceeded directly from local democracy. This was very front of mind for Constitutional drafting and party of why Washington himself and many others opposed Shay's rebellion (to be fair Jefferson was more sympathetic but he was always a little more radical in his ideas on the topic). They were an individualized mob, not a democratic effort against tyranny. The amendment was crafted in part this way to distinguish that stuff like Shay's rebellion was not the proper method of resistance (and also because at the end of the day the issue was about the policies of debt structure, not a core liberty, which farmers had failed to get implemented by official legitimate democratic means).
So the history of the matter rejects the modern framing by gun-rights advocates that it's a purely individual right. The history suggests that local democracy is important, that local democracy should be empowered, and that gun ownership is helpful to those aims. It's not saying that individualized gun ownership is a cornerstone by itself, supreme to everything else! Merely that a local repository of legitimate resistance is a duty of states to maintain.
More options
Context Copy link
The 2nd amendment as written requires a physical fitness test to own a gun.
More options
Context Copy link
People seem to trip over the Constitution a fair bit, operating under the assumption that it somehow developed in a vacuum. But if you look at the political science of the time, no, there was a lot of robust discussion involving all points of the Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers being just a small part of a larger landscape.
Several politicians of the time make no bones about how the 2nd should be interpreted - that all the terrible implements of the soldier and warfare should belong to all the citizens, barring a few government officials.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Come on, be charitable. It's not a perfect analogy. The point I'm trying to make is that it's a dangerous thing to be carrying around in public. It does require volition, but volition may be influenced by rage, or alcohol, or psychosis, or mental illness, or one bad day.
Humans are fallible. They can just be mistaken about whether they should use a gun in self-defense and end up killing someone anyway. The difference between justified and unjustified can be seconds.
and humans are stupid. They do incredibly dumb shit (warning, death) like shoot each other over literal garbage.
Maybe it’s because I live in rural Midwest but I just don’t get that worried about the guy with a pistol in a holster on his side. I’ve never once seen anyone pull a gun like that in public. Those guys are generally the responsible ones, the guy prone to shooting at people is not going to open carry because he wants to surprise people with the gun. Open carry doesn’t lend itself to sudden shooting or crime because as you mentioned everyone notices the gun.
More options
Context Copy link
The victim was named McGlockton and was killed by a ... you know the answer. Incredibly unfortunate nominative determinism.
But that's a significant difference! You've moved the goalposts from "that's something that can kill if you don't concentrate on it sufficiently" (untrue, but would strongly favor your position a la "ultrahazardous activities") to the true argument of "but people are sometimes idiots, impaired, or negligent" which is a major shift with significant consequences!
Is there so much of a difference between a pet tiger that could maul you if you accidentally trigger its prey drive, and a volatile drugged-up gangster who thinks you were chatting up his girl?
You can be pretty sure that a legal concealed carrier is not a violent drugged up gangster. There are actual studies on CHL holders; even those conducted with hostility to the policy of legal concealed carry tend to find that license holders are model citizens.
More options
Context Copy link
That's still the person, not the gun itself, and a 98th+ percentile asshole-quotient person at that. Might as well ask "is there so much difference between a pet tiger that could maul you and a drunk, sleep-deprived rice-rocket driver coming back from a sideshow?"
More options
Context Copy link
But you weren't objecting to volatile drugged-up gangsters. You were objecting to guns. And of course, there is a major difference between a pet tiger and a gun in terms of whether you need to watch them carefully for danger.
And yes, I realize that part of your argument has been the inability to know whether any given gun-owner is unstable. But the unstable people are always a threat to you. The volatile gangster can quite easily stab you or beat the shit out of you, even were he to not have a gun. I don't think that him having a gun meaningfully increases the amount of danger you are in, so seeing a gun should not (imo) make you any more nervous than you would be around any crowd of people.
I have a bad habit of picking examples that muddy my point. Sub out our druggy gangster and replace him with an average Joe who just had a bad week - found out a parent was diagnosed with cancer, lost big on his sports bets, got laid off, car damaged in a hit and run, etc.
I don't want to draw a firm line between stable people and unstable people. Certainly unstable people exist, but normal people can be pushed into instability, and it doesn't take much sometimes. Worse, they can just make innocent mistakes that still end with someone dead. Argument gets heated, someone shoves someone else, someone fears for their life...
More options
Context Copy link
The gun massively increases your danger, surely? Firstly because it so hugely reduces the amount of effort he needs to put into damaging you, and secondly because it makes it so hugely more likely that the damage will be lethal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He’s saying that someone with a gun could kill you at any moment without even trying. The same is not true of, say, a rubber duck. It’s natural to be a lot more nervous around one than the other, even if the owner has not yet demonstrated ill intent or stupidity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
sig owners shift uncomfortably in their seats
Muppet side-eye.png
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Really? This seems… neurotic. Just don’t go on the highway, or too close to the cliffs, or stand next to the guy using a chainsaw.
Being wary around actually dangerous things isn't neurotic!
These things are reasonably safe as long as you pay extra attention, but carelessness can kill or maim very easily.
You should pay attention while using a chainsaw. You should not be extra wary when your neighbor is cutting up a fallen tree branch in his front yard while you're on the porch. Likewise if you're changing your tire on the shoulder, you should exercise extra attention- but if you're in a parking lot off the feeder road, wincing every time a car comes down the highway is uncalled for.
It's quite reasonable to pay extra attention to a gun you're using at the range, or in the hunting field. On the hip of the guy in line in front of you at the coffee shop? Doesn't affect you anymore than him wearing a hat(or not).
I just think calling him neurotic, and referencing the cliff and chainsaw bit specifically was uncharitable. It was a perfectly good analogy about how he personally perceives the threat of guns, even if he knows nothing isikely to go wrong.
It's definitely different than a hat. If for some reason you get in a heated argument, a guy with a hat can't kill you with a twitch of his finger like a guy with a gun can.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's interesting how open carry has changed in the US in the past 30 years. I grew up in a place with many guns and where open carry was legal, but only the most trashy of rednecks would open carry, and they were derided by other gun owners. "Whatsamatter, you think the Russians are going to invade today?" Now if I visit home, I'm probably going to see someone open carrying at the grocery store or whatnot.
I read lots of hiking journals, and Europeans, Canadians, or incredibly insulated coastal blue tribers encountering open carry among the people of MT, ID, WY, and NM on the Continental Divide Trail never ceases to entertain me. They range from "ohmygod this guy had a gun on his hip at a coffee shop, I was so close to dying, what's wrong with your country" to "I was scared at first and then we talked and he invited me to go target shooting so I took a day off hiking and went shooting (after never touching a gun before) and it was the most fun I've ever had in my life."
So actually, open carry is legal in my blue state but I specifically went out and got a CHL because I didn't want to wear it openly in the off-chance other hikers might see it since I'm sure they would think they almost died.
Of course given my luck I'd get prosecuted for concealing a handgun if I didn't bother to get the CHL, so here we are.
The real salt of the Earth guy teaching the CHL licensing class thought this was kind of gay.
More options
Context Copy link
Comparing modern to founding-era and 19th century gun discourse is also fascinating; back then there were laws against concealed carry because that was viewed as covert, sneaky, and dishonorable. What do you have to hide and who are you trying to surprise? Whereas open carry was considered completely normal. Nowadays it's the sight of a gun that freaks people out, so concealed carry is much more popular; allow the gun person their hobby without scaring everyone.
Concealed carry isn’t about freaking people out.
It got popular in the 70s and 80s as part of the broader political struggle. Liberal, urban states adopted stricter policies and rural ones looked for ways to signal their opposition. Revoking old concealed-carry bans was one option.
Arguments about “not marking yourself as a target” or “strategic ambiguity” are secondary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not "I was so close to dying, what's wrong with your country". It's more "why would you bring that, HERE?".
Canada actually does allow for carrying firearms in wilderness areas. I've occasionally passed hunters carrying loaded weapons while hiking, a full half day's walk from cell reception. This is no problem. They could shoot me, but I trust them not to, and I'm not worried they will. They brought a rifle to shoot deer. The handgun at the coffee shop is different. Someone brought that to (if need be) shoot people, and it's going to constantly be in the back of their mind, evaluating whether this is a situation where they need to.
In the ancient Germanic tribes, men would go around with a sword to show that they were free men. More than just a weapon, it was a symbol of freedom and agency. Decisions were made by free men attending the thing and voting by raising their swords. Women, children, and slaves did not carry weapons, and could not vote. (And I say "ancient Germanic tribes", but parts of Switzerland kept this tradition up into the 1990s, swords and all.)
I get the feeling that in parts of the US, going around openly carrying a weapon carries the same sort of symbolism, even if it doesn't give you the right to vote.
More options
Context Copy link
That makes me curious: Do armed police inspire the same reaction?
Yes, for the same reasons. They can make mistakes. Their gun is carried for the purpose of shooting people. It also must weigh on them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link