• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 小时前

    So which is it? You can’t have guns and not have them be accessible to people at the same time.

    Whether a gun is good or bad depends on timing and perspective. All else being equal, a gun at home is way more likely to kill a member of the household than an assailant. But things aren’t always equal.

    I live alone, and don’t have kids over. I ain’t killing myself, and I have decades of experience in firearm safety. So the odds of someone in my household getting hurt by my guns are very low. At the same time, I do live in an area with 40+ minute police response time, so if there is a violent situation, I’m on my own. Guns increase my safety.

    But someone with no training, small kids in the house, and in a safe area isn’t in the same situation, and firearms make them less-safe.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 小时前

      it’s both? You live in the same world i do right? Like we both have the same level of intelligence and critical thinking right? You can let people own guns legally, as weapons of self defense, while also preventing people who are a danger to society and other people, from owning them as well. We’re clearly struggling with the second part, and the republican gun movement isn’t doing much to improve that look either.

      Whether a gun is good or bad depends on timing and perspective.

      literally no? Whether or not a gun is good depends solely on whether or not it positively influenced your outcome in life. Murdering someone is obviously bad, and is going to have a bad outcome for you, using it to protect yourself against someone in a situation where you may have been killed, is obviously a good thing for you.

      Timing and perspective is just what LEADS to these situations, but doesn’t actually denote any significant quality.

      a gun at home is way more likely to kill a member of the household than an assailant.

      due to domestic violence? I’m guessing responsible gun owners aren’t just randomly shooting their family members and pets randomly. Unless you’re referring to some sort of like, schizophrenic safety metric where if your house is on a native indian burial site you’re 3x more likely to get cancer and fucking die. In which case, that’s due to an individuals inherent incompatibility with life, not due to any fault of the gun or the gun owner. (unless they were negligent)

      I live alone, and don’t have kids over. I ain’t killing myself, and I have decades of experience in firearm safety. So the odds of someone in my household getting hurt by my guns are very low.

      exactly, the best kind of person to own a gun. Whether or not you have a family doesn’t significantly change that statistic, unless you don’t responsibly store them, or educate your family on them, or i guess you randomly decided to kill everyone in your house one day.

      But someone with no training, small kids in the house, and in a safe area isn’t in the same situation, and firearms make them less-safe.

      not necessarily, but that is a significantly increased risk for that gun owner. It’s like arguing that owning a power tool is dangerous to your entire family, and neighbors, simply because someone could get hurt by it. Which IS true, it’s just not a real statistic that people actually view.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 小时前

        The thing is, we can’t control for who is bad most of the time. People get murdered with guns every day, and it’s all by people who passed background checks or who acquired them by buying them on a secondary market.