domain:nytimes.com
wayfarer
2d ago
I think the latter are usually packing (and packing military equipment).
by that definition nearly no terrorist attacks in Europe were done by terrorists
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
At least in the case of terrorists specifically, they are demonstrably vulnerable to copycat contagions, and stabbings are the current contagion in Europe. So that particular point I would observe is a little bit faulty.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
Is this actually true?
Well
-
From a common sense view, straw purchasing and theft of legal guns can't really happen if purchasing and legal guns don't exist.
-
No way to prevent this says only nation where this regularly happens is a joke for a reason. Most other first world nations don't seem to have nearly as much gun violence, and they also have more restrictive laws.
Maybe it's worth the freedom (I think it is for most responsible gun owners) but it certainly seems true that less guns in general helps lead to less guns for criminals. Although as 3D printed firearms and the like become easier to do, we might see this equalizing as criminals might not have to steal to begin with.
Inner city crime ridden areas. Not sure what to do when you have too high of a prevalence of violent people. I am willing to say that civilization has broken down in those areas, and then reiterate that gun rights are civilizational rights. If you don't have civilization, you can't have that right.
Since I haven’t seen any comments on this, I want to note how far it goes. It is a fully general argument against liberal democracy in those places. You may or may not be willing to see Los Angeles as a colony ruled by an appointed, authoritarian governor, but the principle points there.
Violent people don't always stay violent people. Testosterone is a hell of a drug, so young men are often more violent than older men. Not sure if ex-convicts should be allowed to have guns, but maybe if you don't trust them to own a gun you shouldn't trust them to be out of prison.
I am extremely sympathetic here. Reintegration of former prisoners into society should involve the restoration of as many rights as possible as soon as possible, rather than keeping them second- or third-class citizens forever. I am ignorant of a lot of details, so I wouldn’t want to present an uncompromising principle. My casual take is that if you trust him to vote, you should trust him to have guns, and if you don’t trust him to have guns, you shouldn’t trust him to vote.
The common thread is one of respect and trust. Gun control is intended to be, in a very literal sense, disempowering: If you are armed you have the power to do these things; we do not trust you with that power, and so we will disarm you. I think that living in a bureaucratic society has desensitized us to this, because respect is inefficient and illegible to the bureaucracy.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
I mean, that's ultimately a process violation and objection though, not a fundamental one. A background check is simply a method (and the only real one?) so as to enforce an already existing, reasonable, and constitutional limit on felons or other prohibited persons owning guns.
An inability to find a pro-gun psychiatrist would of course be an objection, but one on facts and merits, not principle.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
Yeah I would not be surprised if laws against concealed carrying helped contribute to this issue! That being said, a cursory look in cars shows a surprising amount of firearms just sitting in plain view, not even under a seat or in the glovebox so I think a fair bit of that is irresponsible owners.
magicalkittycat
2d ago
Many people did not think this argument was fine in 1776. The patriot militias were very much understood to be out-gunned and under-equipped. Pragmatic loyalists argued in the continental congress that the colonists lacked artillery, a navy, a cavalry, etc. To say nothing of the divergent quality of firearms: many observers noted that the rusty muskets pulled down from over minutemen's fireplaces were no match for the cleaned and oiled Land Pattern Muskets of the redcoats. This argument has been made against every guerilla army, and while guerilla warfare isn't a win-now button, it has been proven effective.
The advantage in weaponry back in 1776 is like two different sized water bottles, the advantage in weaponry now is a water bottle vs a giant lake. Guerilla armies thrive nowadays for a number of reasons, but a lot of it is that the big armies don't go all out.
The stark difference between say, the US during WW2 vs the US during the Iraq War suggests we have a lot of extra capacity we could throw at any issue if we wanted to. We just don't really want to, Americans don't want to feel actual meaningful sacrifices from the nonsense going on in the Middle East, so we throw a fraction of overall power at it. Israel doesn't want to (or at least are held back from) just rounding up all the Palestinians and shooting/bombing/etc. Hamas only operates by hiding in civilian cover and even then they still don't inflict much meaningful damage back. Their fight for survival is us scratching an itch on our backs.
Even when wars are more equal, it's often because they have the support of other great powers. Look at Russia vs Ukraine rn, they're both getting equipment (and sometimes even troops) from various different sources, and according to Trump Russia still seems to be facing a 14:1 ratio against Ukraine. and this is Russia
Ukraine is getting a pittance of western firepower compared to what we could do (we're not even at Iraq levels of sacrifice) if we really wanted to go all out and they're holding on strong against the Russians.
I'm sure a bunch of rogue American militias could go around shooting up theaters or something and terrorizing government siding citizens, but as long as the military stays loyal they don't got a chance if we actually wanna go all out.
The better hope here is that the military is made up of normal Americans, many who will side with the citizens if it ever got to the point where most Americans wanted an uprising to begin with.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
See I think we largely agree that absolute principles do not work in the world of actual humans simply because at bottom, everyone is going to be working in their own favor and cooperate only to the point that doing so advances their interests, and the trick is to get pro-civilizational behaviors is to make benefits from society dependent on being beneficial to that society. But of course this is difficult, and probably more so with the hyper-individualism that the west suffers from that says you can do whatever with no regard for others and quite often very few social or legal consequences.
I don’t know how to get there, but I’d love for America to have social cohesion like in Asia and a Scandinavian economic system.
anti_dan
2d ago
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.
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.
gattsuru
2d ago
As far as I know, Grok 4 isn't even public enough to try to run it on consumer hardware, but Grok 1 was the last publicly released model weights, and they remain pretty hard to run locally even with hefty quantization.
You're definitely stuck with the 'not your weights, not your waifu muse' problem.
In principle I think I agree with assisted suicide and adjacent arguments like you propose. However, in practice I think suicide legalization in almost any form is super vulnerable to misaligned incentives all over the place, and could become a legitimate slippery slope with ever more lenient standards and criteria. Mostly I don't want to live in a society where e.g. old people are pressured by the government, their loved ones, or doctors to commit suicide for partially selfish reasons at vulnerable times, which seems like a recipe for societal decay that I'm not confident we could avoid becoming should we crack open the door too far. Those kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle pressures can be pretty strong. Depressed people, old people, and sick people already have a hard enough time without people suggesting that maybe everyone would be better off without them. In that light, the US laws that focus almost exclusively on imminent or near-certain death type cases seem like as far as is prudent to go because it doesn't tempt us down that road.
Supah_Schmendrick
2d ago
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?"
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
2d ago
Hamas is still kicking in Gaza, the Taliban are in charge of Afghanistan. Unless the US government is willing to glass itself semiauto pistols and rifles pose a significant challenge to imposing a tyranny.
The US government would be far rougher with Red Tribe than it would with the Pashtuns or the Palestinians.
wayfarer
2d ago
many of the anti-car people don't want to ban cars so much as they want to prop up alternatives to the point that others don't feel the need to buy them
or partial bans rather than full bans (and there is already partial ban on cars in Old Towns of many European cities)
Which Noah Smith pointed out that Japan has both great public transit and a lot of car ownership.
in ideal world (according to me) people would have cars but they would be utterly not necessary for travel within city center (or maybe within city in general), and used for travel outside it to what extend it is doable and worth doing is a separate issue
anti_dan
2d ago
More broadly, I think that the idea to use guns to keep the government in check was fine in 1800 but today is just laughable. Since world war one, the wartime capabilities of states and what US citizens are allowed to own have greatly diverged. How is your semi AR15 with a ten rounds mag going to fare against a predator drone or a tank? In the very best case, you would be fighting a protracted war against the federal government. If you win, it looks like Mao winning his civil war, if you lose, it looks like Hamas in Gaza.
Hamas is still kicking in Gaza, the Taliban are in charge of Afghanistan. Unless the US government is willing to glass itself semiauto pistols and rifles pose a significant challenge to imposing a tyranny.
For the most part, people agree with the level of regulation around cars, which are immensely practical in most areas but also account for a huge fraction of accidental manslaughters. So you need a driver's license, your vehicle has to be designed according to certain standards and get regular safety inspections, and you need to obey all lot of different rules while on a public road. This is all very bothersome and expensive, but it also keeps these manslaughter cases on a manageable level, compared to a counterfactual level where everyone could build their own vehicle and try to learn to drive it unsupervised.
I've often seen similar arguments. It, i think, often stems from an ignorance of what actually the gun laws are. In most places in America, it is much more difficult to obtain the licenses to take a gun to the store or post office than it is to get one to drive there.
hydroacetylene
2d ago
It’s very unusual Cajun.
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.
celluloid_dream
2d ago
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.
marinuso
2d ago
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.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2d ago
I'm curious what family, tribe or ethnicity have to contribute to considering the effects of certain economic policies like price controls, or law regarding the environment, or political and institutional design.
Read my reply more carefully. You asked why people choose a side. That is the question I answered. It's not about "economic policies like price controls," it's about whose side am I on.
This is pure Carl Schmitt — that the essence of politics is the friend-enemy distinction: who is my ingroup, and who is my outgroup.
It's something I see often among the leftists on Tumblr — they don't have considered positions on issues, or even fixed principles, they have a side. They support whatever their "tribe" currently supports, because their tribe currently supports it, and if that changes, they change with it.
Hieronymus
2d ago
That makes me curious: Do armed police inspire the same reaction?
ControlsFreak
2d ago
When put like that, it gives the sense that one Mark Zuckerberg is seriously overpaying some recent hires.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
I am arguing that someone who is violent and drugged up is already so lethal that a gun isn't adding meaningful lethality, not that nobody is made more lethal by a gun.
TheLoser
2d ago
I'm sorry, but if being equiped with a gun doesn't increase your lethality, then what's the point? Is not the very purpose of a gun to increase the lethality of whoever weilds it?
It seems trivial to me that a person with a gun is several orders of magnitude more deadly than an unarmed person, no matter how violent or drugged up they are.
No, it is not. It is prior restraint. It is as reasonable as having the government vet political speeches beforehand to ensure they contain no calls for imminent lawless action.
More options
Context Copy link