🔫 Firearms: Everything you wanted to know (and the opportunity to ask if you don't)

[nimelennar]

@Mister44

I know someone so terrified of guns, they can’t even stand in line at Wendy’s behind a cop. They can clearly visualize them spinning around and shooting them for no reason. Of course that is possible. It is also possible they spin around and stab you. Or cold cock you.

I get that. Intrusive thoughts. They’re not nice.

@Mister44

You don’t use it, you don’t especially like it, you don’t see why someone needs it.

I have fired a rifle in the past (though, I’ll admit, not particularly well). But yes, I wouldn’t say I “use” one in the present tense.

@Mister44

First off, “need” is subjective.

I don’t see how. Emotional needs, yes, those are subjective. But “This is something I need to do my job” or “to stay alive” or “to hunt dinner” are pretty cut-and-dry. When I need something unusual (access, training, resources) at work, I need to write up a business case why I need whatever-it-is to do my job. I would hope that is being evaluated objectively.

@Mister44

Second off “need” isn’t and shouldn’t be the criteria on what one should be allowed to own or do.

Let’s split things into “potentially harmful to others” and “harmless” for the moment.

For “harmless” things, then yes. No one should be able to stop me from owning or doing what I like, as long as I’m only posing a risk to myself or my own property.

Once I start risking other people’s lives or property, “need” indeed should be the criteria that determines whether I get it.

In computer security, there’s something called the Principle of Least Privilege. That is, you are given exactly the access you need to do your job, and not a whisker more. If you need access to one file that you don’t have, you put in a request, and you’re given access to that file, but not the other files in that directory. This limits the amount of damage people can do, either accidentally or maliciously.

The same thing should apply to meatspace, and, in some places, it does. If I’m a epidemiologist, and want to do research on [insert dangerous pathogen here], I need to show that I need access to that pathogen, and probably do a whole bunch of leg work on my study, before I’m given access to it.

I’m a strong believer in the idea that every right and every privilege come with a corresponding responsibility attached. If I’m given the access to edit the payroll file, I have the privilege to do so, but I also have the responsibility to only do so when my job demands it of me, and to only make the changes that are part of doing my job. I don’t use that privilege to screw with someone else’s paycheck, or boost my own: such a thing will, and should, get me fired. If my job doesn’t include a responsibility to make use of that access, I shouldn’t have that access.

@Mister44

No one “needs” most of the stuff in life. Like Alcohol. That destroys many more lives than guns (and is a factor in some gun deaths). Smoking is another one.

I believe both alcohol and tobacco, in any rational world, should be Scheduled substances. However, since alcohol is so easy to make, and prohibition is much more harmful than the harms it tries to prevent, I will concede, for now, at least, that it needs to be freely available. As for tobacco, I think we’re slowly winning that war.

@Mister44

But again, your fear isn’t lining up with reality. The percentage of gun murders is a fraction of a percent compared to the number of owners.

I conceded that, didn’t I? My own irrationality is part of what’s driving my fear.

@Mister44

Fun fact - most people murdered know their attacker. Do you know someone like that? If so, avoid them, you just upped your odds.

Avoid who? The person who is going to attack me in the future? How, short of precognition, do you suggest that? Or do you suggest avoiding anyone I know? Or anyone who owns a gun? That last one would seem to run counter to your point that most people with guns aren’t dangerous. I honestly don’t know what you mean by “someone like that.”

---

Anyway, my point is basically one about numbers, about which, we’re basically saying the same thing. You’re saying, “If eighty million people own guns, and only a fraction of one percent are dangerous, then most of them aren’t dangerous!” I’m saying, “Most people aren’t dangerous, but if you give eighty million people guns, you’re going to give a few to dangerous people.”