The G word

[Benko]

"Again, this is gun rights advocates (mainly Republicans) exhibiting the *exact* same behavior that they normally object to from liberals."

Since we can't stop liberals from doing this shit, lets use their own tools against them.  I've decided this should be how the right approaches things.

this grates deeply against my libertarian leanings, i understand the sentiment, but i just wish/hope we can find a better way to stop over reaching government than expanding over reaching government.

[Pointedstick]

It's so obvious as to barely bear mentioning that guns were designed for killing. I'm not sure what the fixation on this is.

It's worth mentioning in the context of all the ridiculous comments a certain wing of the gun enthusiasts finds it necessary to work into their arguments that "guns are just tools," or "bathtubs cause more deaths," or "should we ban cars too?"

Guns are just tools.  They kill less people than cars.  But ALL they are are tools to kill others.  They don't transport you to work.  They don't help you clean your body off.

With the level of regulations of products in this country, good or bad, is it any wonder why people would want guns regulated to SOME degree?  We regulate all sorts of products for safety purposes.  Is it that surprising/offensive that we regulate something with the sole, specific goal of killing another creature?  It may be debatable in whether it does much good, but certainly not uniquely worth fomenting a revolution over, which many in this country seem to think it is.

And this isn't a "straw man" as far as I'm aware. I would agree that most gun-owners are being mature/safe about their decision.  But even many of them are sympathetic with pangs of revolution and secession everytime gun control is brought up, and IMO their arguments ring of anarchist/libertarian assumptions that if carried universally would yield a very different government than they're complacent with on every other issue, including the gross intrusions into Americans' 4th Amendment rights.  So this tells me something.  If they're uniquely interested in liberty around guns, rather than any other area of government intrusion... as well as often failing pretty solidly on other areas of safety (diet, exercise, finance, etc).

You're onto something here. Let me see if I can help you get some more clarity.

People talk about symbolism all the time but get the symbolized thing wrong. It's not penises, it's not masculinity… it's independence. With a gun, you are your own man (or woman!). Nobody can tell you what to do. Nobody can force you to acquiesce to their demands. You can defend yourself, your family, and your friends. You can hold off numerically-superior adversaries if need be. You can kill animals to eat or simply if they are threatening you. The gun is a universal independence-improving tool in a primitive setting.

That's the mythos, at least. And it's one that has massive appeal to a very, very large number of people. I hope you can understand how on an emotional level, regulation--any regulation--attacks that mythos. Even things that might seem "reasonable" to some. For example:

Product safety regulations? Adds cost, needless complexity, and might diminish the reliability when you need it to work most.
Magazine size restrictions? Reduces your ability to defend yourself against multiple attackers or large, dangerous animals.
Universal background check requirements? Adds pointless legal jeopardy when sharing, trading, or selling firearms among friends and family.
Safe storage requirements? Reduces your access to the weapon in an emergency.
One-gun-a-month law? Really no big effect on anything, but symbolic of distaste for the object and evidence of politicians' not sharing this mythos with you.
And so on...


You'll notice that the people who most distrust and misunderstand guns and the people who like them tend to be people who value independence the least. It's a mythos with no allure to them. They hate the idea of being alone, shivering in the cold, battling nature, fighting enemies. These are not things they would ever choose to do unless there was no other option. They prefer communities, mutuality, interdependence, civilization, etc. Their idea of a vacation is much more "luxury cruise" than it is "camping."

So in my opinion, this really is an issue that boils down very neatly along psychological lines. If you are a person who values independence (a personal, individual ideology), there is not a single gun regulation that really makes any sense to you. All they can possibly do is hurt you. You could maybe understand them in the context of politics, placating worried ignorant people, social signaling, etc… but to YOU, they are valueless at best and actively harmful at worst. But if you're a person who values interdependence, then there's more or less no gun regulation that's bad, up to and including completely banning them from individuals not sanctioned by the group (police, military, etc). To you, the fewer guns in unknown hands, the better. You will be protected by the community; lone individuals with guns represent terrible danger!

This is why compromise is so hard to come by. What does a person who emotionally likes only some gun regulations look like? I will posit that this person doesn't actually exist; that more or less everyone with an actual somewhat considered opinion on the issue would secretly or not-so-secretly prefer either full legalization or a blanket ban.

Thus, I will re-state my belief that New York should be able to ban guns entirely, and Montana should be able to place zero restrictions of any kind on them.

[Mountaineer]

It's worth mentioning in the context of all the ridiculous comments a certain wing of the gun enthusiasts finds it necessary to work into their arguments that "guns are just tools," or "bathtubs cause more deaths," or "should we ban cars too?"

Guns are just tools.  They kill less people than cars.  But ALL they are are tools to kill others.  They don't transport you to work.  They don't help you clean your body off.

Much of what you say I agree with.  However, I do not agree with the bolded statement.  I think MOST people use guns for sport or merely as a piece of art (e.g. an example of fine mechanical workmanship) - target shooting, hunting, fireplace mantle decoration, fondling on cold evenings while dreaming of John Wayne, decorating a Mountaineer icon, and such, NOT as ONLY a tool to kill others. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

It's worth mentioning in the context of all the ridiculous comments a certain wing of the gun enthusiasts finds it necessary to work into their arguments that "guns are just tools," or "bathtubs cause more deaths," or "should we ban cars too?"

Guns are just tools.  They kill less people than cars.  But ALL they are are tools to kill others.  They don't transport you to work.  They don't help you clean your body off.

Much of what you say I agree with.  However, I do not agree with the bolded statement.  I think MOST people use guns for sport or merely as a piece of art (e.g. an example of fine mechanical workmanship) - target shooting, hunting, fireplace mantle decoration, fondling on cold evenings while dreaming of John Wayne, decorating a Mountaineer icon, and such, NOT as ONLY a tool to kill others. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

You're right.  I guess I was saying that to the degree that they are actual TOOLS, rather than a recreational device, they are used to kill living beings.  And I'm definitely not trying to make light of hunting/sport culture around guns.  In-fact, I'm going trap shooting tomorrow and can't wait.  Hopefully I'll "blast" through my 21/25 plateau.

[moda0306]

It's so obvious as to barely bear mentioning that guns were designed for killing. I'm not sure what the fixation on this is.

It's worth mentioning in the context of all the ridiculous comments a certain wing of the gun enthusiasts finds it necessary to work into their arguments that "guns are just tools," or "bathtubs cause more deaths," or "should we ban cars too?"

Guns are just tools.  They kill less people than cars.  But ALL they are are tools to kill others.  They don't transport you to work.  They don't help you clean your body off.

With the level of regulations of products in this country, good or bad, is it any wonder why people would want guns regulated to SOME degree?  We regulate all sorts of products for safety purposes.  Is it that surprising/offensive that we regulate something with the sole, specific goal of killing another creature?  It may be debatable in whether it does much good, but certainly not uniquely worth fomenting a revolution over, which many in this country seem to think it is.

And this isn't a "straw man" as far as I'm aware. I would agree that most gun-owners are being mature/safe about their decision.  But even many of them are sympathetic with pangs of revolution and secession everytime gun control is brought up, and IMO their arguments ring of anarchist/libertarian assumptions that if carried universally would yield a very different government than they're complacent with on every other issue, including the gross intrusions into Americans' 4th Amendment rights.  So this tells me something.  If they're uniquely interested in liberty around guns, rather than any other area of government intrusion... as well as often failing pretty solidly on other areas of safety (diet, exercise, finance, etc).

You're onto something here. Let me see if I can help you get some more clarity.

People talk about symbolism all the time but get the symbolized thing wrong. It's not penises, it's not masculinity… it's independence. With a gun, you are your own man (or woman!). Nobody can tell you what to do. Nobody can force you to acquiesce to their demands. You can defend yourself, your family, and your friends. You can hold off numerically-superior adversaries if need be. You can kill animals to eat or simply if they are threatening you. The gun is a universal independence-improving tool in a primitive setting.

That's the mythos, at least. And it's one that has massive appeal to a very, very large number of people. I hope you can understand how on an emotional level, regulation--any regulation--attacks that mythos. Even things that might seem "reasonable" to some. For example:

Product safety regulations? Adds cost, needless complexity, and might diminish the reliability when you need it to work most.
Magazine size restrictions? Reduces your ability to defend yourself against multiple attackers or large, dangerous animals.
Universal background check requirements? Adds pointless legal jeopardy when sharing, trading, or selling firearms among friends and family.
Safe storage requirements? Reduces your access to the weapon in an emergency.
One-gun-a-month law? Really no big effect on anything, but symbolic of distaste for the object and evidence of politicians' not sharing this mythos with you.
And so on...


You'll notice that the people who most distrust and misunderstand guns and the people who like them tend to be people who value independence the least. It's a mythos with no allure to them. They hate the idea of being alone, shivering in the cold, battling nature, fighting enemies. These are not things they would ever choose to do unless there was no other option. They prefer communities, mutuality, interdependence, civilization, etc. Their idea of a vacation is much more "luxury cruise" than it is "camping."

So in my opinion, this really is an issue that boils down very neatly along psychological lines. If you are a person who values independence (a personal, individual ideology), there is not a single gun regulation that really makes any sense to you. All they can possibly do is hurt you. You could maybe understand them in the context of politics, placating worried ignorant people, social signaling, etc… but to YOU, they are valueless at best and actively harmful at worst. But if you're a person who values interdependence, then there's more or less no gun regulation that's bad, up to and including completely banning them from individuals not sanctioned by the group (police, military, etc). To you, the fewer guns in unknown hands, the better. You will be protected by the community; lone individuals with guns represent terrible danger!

This is why compromise is so hard to come by. What does a person who emotionally likes only some gun regulations look like? I will posit that this person doesn't actually exist; that more or less everyone with an actual somewhat considered opinion on the issue would secretly or not-so-secretly prefer either full legalization or a blanket ban.

Thus, I will re-state my belief that New York should be able to ban guns entirely, and Montana should be able to place zero restrictions of any kind on them.

PS,

I think we've bridged quite a gap with that post.  I'm pretty much in agreement with a lot of what you're saying.  Independence is probably a much better term for what "that segment" of gun enthusiasts, as well as gun enthusiasts in general, is seeking... though I would say it is a masculine trait... but that is probably just me trying to pick another area to debate.

And I'm very sympathetic with the idea that guns be a state-by-state issue, so you're not going to have me kicking that door down on you.

If I had to find an area to pick, it would be that "independence" is in the eye of the beholder in some ways, and it is slightly annoying when someone is so blindingly willing to usurp the "independence" of their doctors by trying to pass a gag order/lawsuit/law around the questions they ask (though I'm glad this debate is being had given the government's potential ability to see our records).  Further, you know I get annoyed with the "this land is my land" stubbornness on property, and that is so often tied with the "independent" folks out there.  But that's an anarcho-commie rabbit hole I don't want to dive into as an actual option for common-day property models, so much as just acknowledged when the Cliven Bundy's of the world foment revolution.

But I think we've swung back into pretty close agreement.  Which is nice cuz I don't like disagreeing with you... you're too damn close to Gumby for reliably researching the living f*&k out of whatever you're debating me on.

[Mountaineer]

In-fact, I'm going trap shooting tomorrow and can't wait.  Hopefully I'll "blast" through my 21/25 plateau.

Best wishes.  You are a better man than I (comment limited to trap shooting only  ).  I'm a rifle/pistol/revolver mucho macho person gender neutral alien "Mountaineer's are always free" man.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Bahaha. 

I probably would be too... but trap is cheaper and I don't own a handgun.  I also haven't found a good range in my area.  Pure complacency on my part... so a better man I am not.

[moda0306]

IMO, that's exactly what the gag order law is.

People don't want to be even *asked* about whether or not they own a gun, so they requested government intervention to spare them from the traumatic experience of such a conversation. 

Personally I've decided the gag order is a bad but very understandable idea.  And it is not the tramautic experience of the conversation, it is using the state to protect you from (the consequences of an overreaching) state as implemented by overzealous doctors who cannot control themselves.

What exactly did these overzealous doctors do on behalf of the state?

That, and if there's no hard link, imagine the precedence this sets... There's always potential for the state to use information collected by the private sector (see the cell phone invasion by the NSA... something that only the libertarian wing of conservatives seemed to give a $hit about).  Does that mean that another branch of government can come in and pre-require omission of certain questions?

That's a really, really sloppy way to prevent state over-reach.  Maybe we should nuke the world's nuke supply to prevent nuclear war!!

(Ok... perhaps a bit of a stretch... but I'll stick with it)

[Pointedstick]

PS,

I think we've bridged quite a gap with that post.  I'm pretty much in agreement with a lot of what you're saying.  Independence is probably a much better term for what "that segment" of gun enthusiasts, as well as gun enthusiasts in general, is seeking... though I would say it is a masculine trait... but that is probably just me trying to pick another area to debate.

And I'm very sympathetic with the idea that guns be a state-by-state issue, so you're not going to have me kicking that door down on you.

If I had to find an area to pick, it would be that "independence" is in the eye of the beholder in some ways, and it is slightly annoying when someone is so blindingly willing to usurp the "independence" of their doctors by trying to pass a gag order/lawsuit/law around the questions they ask (though I'm glad this debate is being had given the government's potential ability to see our records).  Further, you know I get annoyed with the "this land is my land" stubbornness on property, and that is so often tied with the "independent" folks out there.  But that's an anarcho-commie rabbit hole I don't want to dive into as an actual option for common-day property models, so much as just acknowledged when the Cliven Bundy's of the world foment revolution.

But I think we've swung back into pretty close agreement.  Which is nice cuz I don't like disagreeing with you... you're too damn close to Gumby for reliably researching the living f*&k out of whatever you're debating me on.

Glad to hear it!

I also disagree with the gag order law. Dumb law, bad way to try to prevent the alleged risk that's full of unintended consequences. But to me it still makes perfect sense from the perspective of those who support it. Independence is a personal thing; sometimes your independence has to come at the expense of someone else--especially someone who could be seen as trying to curtail it by discouraging you from owning guns, trying to get your children to spy on you, potentially involving the state to take away your guns or children, etc. I still think doctors basically brought this on themselves. The fact of the matter is that guns are a huge huge thing in the USA due to the allure of the independence mythos. Mess with that and you risk the ire of gun owners who are VERY numerous and politically connected, especially outside of the dozen or so urban liberal centers that represents where most pf the non-gun-owners live. It's just a terrible idea. People who don't like guns in this country often overplay their hands or discriminate against gun owners without realizing just how powerful we are in the vast majority of the country. It drives them crazy. It's driving WiseOne crazy. You can tell. I gather she wouldn't want to be practicing medicine in Florida anytime soon!

I think you're mostly right about the connection between masculinity and independence. It's not a 1:1 correlation, but it's pretty strong, and I think there's an evolutionary root there. On average men are physically more powerful than women, and our biology encourages us to basically be wandering nomads impregnating as many women as we can, all of which encourage independence. Women, by contrast, have a biology that inherently requires the protection of a group while raising children and during pregnancy and (which without reliable birth control could happen at any time for a sexually active woman). And it's difficult to work to produce resources for themselves and their children while they're busy with those children, so their incentive is to either get resources from the community, or get a man to pair up and settle down to provide for them. So the independence urge is nowhere near as strong for women; going out on your own as a woman in a primitive setting is practically suicide.  To a certain extent, none of can really escape from the implications of our biology and how they drive behavior even in a modern context.

However, the state of society can emphasize or depress these natural tendencies. In an advanced wealthy society, where childbearing and raising becomes less critical or less emphasized, I would expect more women to adopt independence mindsets--the ones who always wanted to in the first place but who were constrained by the social necessity of having children and the absence of reliable birth control to prevent accidental pregnancies. And I would also expect more men to drop masculinity--the ones who never felt very masculine in the first place but no longer need to pretend or serve a socially useful masculine role. So a richer, less dangerous society will permit more masculine women and more feminine men, which is in fact exactly what you see variations of today all over the developed world.

[moda0306]

"Again, this is gun rights advocates (mainly Republicans) exhibiting the *exact* same behavior that they normally object to from liberals."

Since we can't stop liberals from doing this shit, lets use their own tools against them.  I've decided this should be how the right approaches things.

Don't worry. Republicans ARE "doing this shit."  In fact, in areas arguably far more crucial than gun control, they are more likely to "do this shit."  But of course, they do it in the name of preventing bombings in the U.S. instead of shootings.  And they're doing it in secret.

Of course, I can appreciate the irony of saying this during a dem administration. It's not lost on me. But defense hawk mindsets usually lead to these overreaches.  And based on what I hear from the public I consider that to be a more republican trait for now.

[Benko]

You realize, Benko, that you are proving moda's point as well: You don't really care about liberty or freedom.  You just want what you want (in this case, you want to dictate what someone else can say to you) and will gladly use the power of the state to restrict someone else's freedom achieve your goal.

i don't like the rules, but I didn't make them.  My nature is very live and let live.  I would prefer a country other than as it is, but given e.g. the way the left passed Obamacare and the way that Obama has at least tried to impose amnesty for zillions of illegals, etc. over the last week I've decided that if it were possible (it is not) i'd be for the right being as ruthless in undoing much of the damage as the left used in imposing it. 

Moda,

I ain't a neocon and have no ideas what are the best policies on foreign arrairs.  I'm  more worried about the US internally.

So Moda, still think ROmney and Obama would not have been significantly different?  Wasn't that the board concensus?

[moda0306]

Benko,

You may not be a neo-con, but the guys that you're arguing are a far safe bet for our liberty are simply NOT on areas that are far more important than gun control (mostly regarding the 4th amendment and with regards to the fact that there's so much secrecy behind the violation of it... and that secrecy breeds far more corruption).

I'll throw you a bone, though.  I'm now a lot more critical of Obama... and partially due to his involvement in the IRS scandal and the media email scandal.  Absolutely terrifying shit (though not unique to him, I still believe).

I am pretty confident in most important areas Romney would be similar to Obama.  All the debate-noise would look different, but that's just noise.

[moda0306]

Benko,

I realize that we're not always proposing policy solutions that fit perfectly into our moral philosophy on how the world should work (in fact, the we're usually suggesting them as a lesser of two evils), but the precedent that this sets is pretty ridiculous: The government shall limit the transmission of information that, if the recipient of that information were to be working with nefarious government groups, would be giving away potentially harmful information of the sender.

This isn't anywhere close to reasonable, even in a world where we have to make compromises about our moral ideals to make a world that works.  And your logic is that "liberals do asinine ridiculous things way more so here we are."  Well, I just explained to you instances where liberals are actually less likely to take away freedoms that I think if you drill down we'd have to agree are more important to our government NOT becoming a banana republic than whether they institute gun control or not.

Overall, when I participate in debates with you, the main thing I come away thinking is that you simply have drank way too much of the conservative tribalist cool aid. 

Can you name one liberal that you have a decent amount of respect for?

Can you think of ANY liberal president you would rather have today than ANY republican president, if we were to take congress & the senate and governors as the pool of candidates?

If not, I wonder if you have cornered yourself ideologically.  I can EASILY think of plenty of republican candidates that I'd rather have than a number of democrat candidates.

And Rand Paul, in spite of some real dip-shittery sometimes, is towards the top of my list nowadays.

[MachineGhost]

this grates deeply against my libertarian leanings, i understand the sentiment, but i just wish/hope we can find a better way to stop over reaching government than expanding over reaching government. 

You're dealing with naked apes in a human zoo.  Which is why anarchy can never, ever work.  Take comfort in the fact the vast majority of laws on the books are never enforced.  Public policy is whatever the fashion de jour of the moment is.

In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. If the road between two villages is impassable, the peasant says, "There should be a law about parish roads." If a park-keeper takes advantage of the want of spirit in those who follow him with servile obedience and insults one of them, the insulted man says, "There should be a law to enjoin more politeness upon the park-keepers." If there is stagnation in agriculture or commerce, the husbandman, cattle-breeder, or corn-speculator argues, "It is protective legislation which we require." Down to the old clothesman there is not one who does not demand a law to protect his own little trade. If the employer lowers wages or increases the hours of labor, the politician in embryo explains, "We must have a law to put all that to rights." In short, a law everywhere and for everything! A law about fashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a law to put a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result from human indolence and cowardice.

this grates deeply against my libertarian leanings, i understand the sentiment, but i just wish/hope we can find a better way to stop over reaching government than expanding over reaching government.

You're dealing with naked apes in a human zoo. Which is why anarchy can never, ever work. Take comfort in the fact the vast majority of laws on the books are never enforced. Public policy is whatever the fashion de jour of the moment is.

this was my hunch as well.. as i mentioned in an earlier post i don't see this law getting a lot of use..

my hunch is that it will remain a mostly unused law. doctors will word their gun safety questions in a common sense manner and continue to practice as they always have. and gun owners can rest easy there isn't some gun control scheme brewing behind the questions they do get asked...

[MachineGhost]

This is why compromise is so hard to come by. What does a person who emotionally likes only some gun regulations look like? I will posit that this person doesn't actually exist; that more or less everyone with an actual somewhat considered opinion on the issue would secretly or not-so-secretly prefer either full legalization or a blanket ban.

Meep!  I don't feel full legalization nor a blanket ban makes any sense.  I don't need to belabor either point as there are sufficient rationalizations available for both.  In my view, what is the rational, moderate, compromising approach to the issue of weapons control while respecting mythologies and staying civilized?  That's all there is to it. 

Working on the cultural violence problem of the USA would go a lot farther in preventing & reducing crime than allowing more guns.  Guns are merely a symptom to a problem, not a cure.  Getting obsessed over guns is like getting obsessed over statins; both miss the root cause, completely.

[WiseOne]

Interesting flood that is unleashed here!

I find it very interesting that you could take many of these posts, substitute "marijuana" for "gun" and they make just as much sense.  There are many, many ways in which government agencies have been oppressive, and out of all the current ways I'd say that drug laws are by far the worst.  The efforts at gun control are tame in comparison.  This is what I didn't quite understand.  It seems that the symbolism of owning a gun is far more powerful than that of owning a bag of weed, and that's the main difference - but the desire for freedom is the same.  I simply question whether gun ownership actually does anything to assure that freedom in reality.  Even if you spent every cent of your income on firearms, I doubt you could out-gun the US government.

Incidentally I've talked to patients about drug habits more often than I can count, and such things are routinely entered into the medical record.  There is not a single instance I'm aware of where such an entry led to any type of government action.  And here's another thing - patients tell us about drug use etc VOLUNTARILY.  I'm not holding a gun (no pun intended) to their heads to force them to do so.  Frankly most of them are happy to be able to talk about it openly and are glad to be asked.

PS - your story was quite interesting, although I wonder why that gun dealer in Mount Vernon sold you the gun if you gave a NYC address but didn't show a permit.  If the police had arrested you, the dealer would have been next.  I know getting a permit is a PITA but why didn't you elect to go that route?  At least you had that option - true "victimless crimes" typically can't be circumvented so easily.

I can also understand why NYC is more skittish about guns than, say, Montana.  If I fired a gun in my apartment in self-defense, it would put a lot of innocent people in the apartments around me at risk.  There's less of a role for a gun in such a crowded city, and not many hunting opportunities around here either.

[Pointedstick]

PS - your story was quite interesting, although I wonder why that gun dealer in Mount Vernon sold you the gun if you gave a NYC address but didn't show a permit.  If the police had arrested you, the dealer would have been next.  I know getting a permit is a PITA but why didn't you elect to go that route?  At least you had that option - true "victimless crimes" typically can't be circumvented so easily.

I lived north of NYC at the time; it was legal for me to buy the gun and them to sell it to me. What was illegal was for me to accidentally enter NYC with it.

I can also understand why NYC is more skittish about guns than, say, Montana.  If I fired a gun in my apartment in self-defense, it would put a lot of innocent people in the apartments around me at risk.  There's less of a role for a gun in such a crowded city, and not many hunting opportunities around here either.

That's certainly true in terms of overpenetration endangering neighbors. This is where there's room for sensible regulations: for example, that all firearms stored loaded in an apartment building only be loaded with frangible projectiles specifically designed to minimize overpenetration through multiple layers of rigid objects (i.e. walls).

However, in terms of needing a gun in the first place, as safe as NYC is among the major cities, it's still a much more dangerous place than Montana.

[MachineGhost]

However, in terms of needing a gun in the first place, as safe as NYC is among the major cities, it's still a much more dangerous place than Montana.

And allowing guns won't change it.

[Libertarian666]

However, in terms of needing a gun in the first place, as safe as NYC is among the major cities, it's still a much more dangerous place than Montana.

And allowing guns won't change it.

What is your evidence for this claim?

[Libertarian666]

Interesting flood that is unleashed here!

I find it very interesting that you could take many of these posts, substitute "marijuana" for "gun" and they make just as much sense.  There are many, many ways in which government agencies have been oppressive, and out of all the current ways I'd say that drug laws are by far the worst.  The efforts at gun control are tame in comparison.  This is what I didn't quite understand.  It seems that the symbolism of owning a gun is far more powerful than that of owning a bag of weed, and that's the main difference - but the desire for freedom is the same.  I simply question whether gun ownership actually does anything to assure that freedom in reality.  Even if you spent every cent of your income on firearms, I doubt you could out-gun the US government.

Libertarians agree with your position on the drug laws. However, your claim that "efforts at gun control are tame in comparison" is not true. Many people have been dissuaded from owning firearms that they could have used to defend themselves against crime, due to gun control laws. Furthermore, victim disarmament ("gun-free") zones are an open invitation to criminals to fire away at will, and in fact many shooting rampages are perpetrated in just such victim disarmament zones, such as schools.

And as far as I'm aware, no mass shooting has ever occurred at a gun range, even though there are a lot more guns there than in most places. Perhaps that is because any attempt to do that would result in the attempted mass shooter being shot almost immediately...

[MachineGhost]

However, in terms of needing a gun in the first place, as safe as NYC is among the major cities, it's still a much more dangerous place than Montana.

And allowing guns won't change it.

What is your evidence for this claim?

Common sense?  Have you noticed how many black people are killed in Chicago every weekend?  You really think taking their guns away would change anything in Chicago anymore than giving guns to the same black people in New York would decrease crime?

[Pointedstick]

Common sense?  Have you noticed how many black people are killed in Chicago every weekend?  You really think taking their guns away would change anything in Chicago anymore than giving guns to the same black people in New York would decrease crime?

This is an incoherent argument. Gun control fails to significantly impact criminal acquisition and use of guns (they're criminals, they don't care about the laws) but strongly affects the acquisition and use of guns by people like you and me--who DO care about the laws.

Who is talking about "giving guns" to anyone? This is a ridiculous misrepresentation. All people are suggesting for this is allowing normal, law-abiding people like you and me who happen to live in NYC the same kind of legal access to firearms enjoyed by most other parts of the USA--including a wide assortment of large, densely-populated cities.

When the perpetrators and victims of gun violence are both gangy druggy criminaly type people, like in Chicago, the amount of gun control is frankly irrelevant. These people kill one another irrespective of what the law says they can or can't have or who they're allowed to buy it from. The group of people you positively impact by loosening gun laws are the normal people who live or work close to areas of high criminal activity who are made able to better defend themselves from these criminal types.

[MachineGhost]

Common sense?  Have you noticed how many black people are killed in Chicago every weekend?  You really think taking their guns away would change anything in Chicago anymore than giving guns to the same black people in New York would decrease crime?

This is an incoherent argument. Gun control fails to significantly impact criminal acquisition and use of guns (they're criminals, they don't care about the laws) but strongly affects the acquisition and use of guns by people like you and me--who DO care about the laws.

Who is talking about "giving guns" to anyone? This is a ridiculous misrepresentation. All people are suggesting for this is allowing normal, law-abiding people like you and me who happen to live in NYC the same kind of legal access to firearms enjoyed by most other parts of the USA--including a wide assortment of large, densely-populated cities.

When the perpetrators and victims of gun violence are both gangy druggy criminaly type people, like in Chicago, the amount of gun control is frankly irrelevant. These people kill one another irrespective of what the law says they can or can't have or who they're allowed to buy it from. The group of people you positively impact by loosening gun laws are the normal people who live or work close to areas of high criminal activity who are made able to better defend themselves from these criminal types.

I don't see how.  What makes NYC dangerous vs Montana is not all the gunless white people.  Montana is overwhelmingly supermajority+++ white.  So allowing guns in NYC won't change anything materially for the white people, except maybe all the rightwing racists on Staten Island will be able to blow away some colored thugs they wouldn't have been able to do so before.  What looser restrictions may also do is amp up the existing violence of the colored thugs to the extent current restrictions make it difficult for them to acquire guns.  And to the extent that crime then starts going into the white people culture, they will "need" guns in an arms race to protect themselves.

[Pointedstick]

I don't see how.  What makes NYC dangerous vs Montana is not all the gunless white people.  Montana is overwhelmingly supermajority+++ white.  So allowing guns in NYC won't change anything materially for the white people, except maybe all the rightwing racists on Staten Island will be able to blow away some colored thugs they wouldn't have been able to do so before.  What looser restrictions may also do is amp up the existing violence of the colored thugs to the extent current restrictions make it difficult for them to acquire guns.

Why racialize this? Don't you care about all the gunless black people who are too poor to move to the posh white suburbs?

Your argument still makes no sense since you appear to believe that gun control is actually effective in curbing gun acquisition among those who, by the very definition of how we describe them (criminals) don't care what the law says. If a thug in NYC wants to get a gun, sure, he can't walk into a gun store and do it… but he couldn't do that in Philly or Dallas either since he's already a felon and felons fail the background check. So if he wants a gun, he has to buy it in a private sale (which, since it is PRIVATE, no law can prevent, only criminalize), or steal it, neither scenario of which is any different from if he lived somewhere other than NYC.

I mean really. Think it through a bit. The only possible way that NYC-type gun control impedes criminals is is by reducing the pool of nearby locals whose guns can be stolen or unwittingly sold to criminals by the clueless. But impeding criminal gun acquisition by disarming the very people who need defense against criminals strikes me as extremely bad social policy.

[WiseOne]

NYC is a lot less dangerous than people assume it is.  I'm not so sure that Montana is actually safer.  Do you have stats to back that up?  There's more criminal incidents in NYC yes, but what about the per capita crime rate?

My guess is that gun control hasn't much affected crime rates in NYC at all.  That's hard to show especially since crime stats have dropped while gun control has increased, so you have to think about mechanisms.  When/how would a gun help you? and are there cheaper/easier methods of protecting yourself, that would be at least as effective as a gun?

Most shootings here don't involve random persons entering an apartment and giving you enough time to grab and load your gun.  (Apartments aren't that big, for starters).  They are usually fights between people who know each other, and often the victim is a kid playing in the apartment next door.

I could imagine a gun used in self defense if you were walking somewhere isolated late at night and some thug came up to mug you.  I've lived in places where that was commonplace, and the strategy we used was to carry a fake wallet with $20 in it so the thug would be happy.  The one time I got picked on, I got away cheaply by giving the guy the orange juice I was carrying.  Cheaper than a gun and quite effective!  I do know one person who decided to buy a gun and spend a vacation week training at a gun range.  He slept with it under his pillow, and to my knowledge never used it.

Also the rather ridiculous suggestion that arming schoolteachers would prevent school shootings...really?  Unless schoolteachers plan to pack loaded machine guns every day and keep them loaded and readily available at all times, I can't quite imagine this being an effective strategy.  It would probably increase school shootings because with all the guns floating around the school it's not a stretch to imagine them getting stolen on a regular basis.

I think it comes back to the gun's symbolism...people who want guns want them and it has nothing to do with crime.  No need to rationalize by saying things like it would deter crime...