= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FiftyTwo comments on Gun Control: How would we know? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (167)
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.
The one I usually hear is deterrence. Even if guns have negative self-defense value, they may discourage certain types of attacks.
Can you elaborate? I am not sure if I understand what actually is the argument.
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.
But would you then say that the gun has "negative self-defense value"? That's the part by which I am confused.
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.
That makes sense, thanks.
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".