FiftyTwo comments on Gun Control: How would we know? - Less Wrong

11 Post author: rlpowell 20 December 2012 08:14PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (167)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 21 December 2012 04:57:48PM 2 points [-]

It might be interesting to reverse the question? What benefits do you think there are from gun availability?

<Pause so you think of your own answer before reading mine.........>

The ones I hear often are:

  • Self defence. People with guns can stop themselves being hurt. One could theoretically add up the number of times people have successfully defended themselves and compare it to gun homicides.

  • Pleasure gun enthusiasts get from their hobby. Seems relatively minor benefit, as they could likely get equal enjoyment from other hobbies, and most forms of regulation wouldn't affect them significantly.

  • Protection from government power. Brought up by libertarian leaning folks a lot, don't think there are any recent historical examples in developed countries.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 21 December 2012 08:15:37PM 4 points [-]

The one I usually hear is deterrence. Even if guns have negative self-defense value, they may discourage certain types of attacks.

Comment author: prase 23 December 2012 01:21:21PM 0 points [-]

Can you elaborate? I am not sure if I understand what actually is the argument.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 24 December 2012 04:39:37AM 1 point [-]

For example, I'm less likely to attempt to brake into a house if I think there's a reasonable chance of it having armed defenders.

Comment author: prase 24 December 2012 09:25:40AM 0 points [-]

But would you then say that the gun has "negative self-defense value"? That's the part by which I am confused.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 25 December 2012 12:12:49AM *  1 point [-]

I'll make a guess: It means that an average person with a gun is more likely to hurt themselves than to hurt the criminal. Yet, knowledge that given person is likely to have a gun at home, will make the criminal less likely to attack.

So the gun is harmful to its owner during the act of self-defense, but increases the owner's over-all safety anyway.

Comment author: prase 25 December 2012 12:38:57AM 1 point [-]

That makes sense, thanks.

Comment author: rlpowell 24 December 2012 08:53:23AM 1 point [-]

Answering the question before reading on: I have believe in the past that more guns in the hands of ordinary, well-meaning means less violent crime, and less violent deaths, due to deterrence; "an armed society is a polite society".

Comment author: Larks 23 December 2012 10:48:16PM 1 point [-]
  • Liberty as a terminal value. People being able to do what they like (subject to standard Millian proviso) is a good.