🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@sheogorath@g0v.social We have reasons in america why we dont allow bi-directional gun registeries. Part of the reason for our gun rights is to protect against tryanny (if we ever need to overthrow the government or protect ourselves from it we can). If there were a registry where the government knew the name and address of everyone with a gun it would defeat that purpose.

What we have is a uni-directional system. In other words there is no way to just look up a list of everyone who has a gun (not even police can do this). But what they can do is if they find a gun/bullet they can use the serial number on that gun to trace it back to who purchased it.

So effectively a gun can always be traced to its owner but it is impossible to see if a person owns any guns in general.

@sheogorath@g0v.social I'd rather not argue semantics, I'm not sure its particular useful int he debate. With that said I do apologize for not being more clear in what I was asserting (usually what leads to semantic type debates).

@sheogorath@g0v.social Also I would not support any law that requires a gun owner to have a bi-directional registration of ownership (in the USA it is currently uni-directional).

While I am ok with a law that requires guns to be in safes I would never support a law where one needs to register that with the government and actually have inspection. There are of course good reasons for this (ones you may very well disagree with).

Its the same logic with cars, a police officer can't legally pull you over just to inspect you and make sure you have a license and arent drunk. You actually have to do something illegal first before they have the right to pull you over.

The reasons for this are similar as my argument with guns. If you want to "inspect" a gun owner and see if they are following the rules you first need to witness something illegal going on IMO.

@sheogorath@g0v.social I care way more about how many dogs they are shooting or unarmed black men compared to citizens.

How many "resources" it takes is hardly my top concern when it comes to the police. I would happily consume more resources if it means a larger percentage of the people killed are the bad guys.

@sheogorath@g0v.social Depends on how you measure effective. From my expiernce with police their more likely to shoot your dog than a criminal. I feel FAR less safe when im around a police officer than I am around a citizen with a gun in a firing range. My experiences (and those of most people) have taught us just how ineffective police tend to be.

@iamduck @ster @arteteco That legalizing guns increases violence. Studies disagree on this points. Studies which look at all countries and compare show drastic INCREASE in violence. However studies which attempt to normalize the data by cherry picking countries via one criteria or another tend to result in either no change in violence at all or very marginal difference one way or the other.

But the argument that it significantly reduces violence doesnt seem to be accurate unless you go out of your way to cherry pick the studies just to support your view the science just isnt as clear as you suggest.

@Otuk@mastodon.technology I too want to live in a country where I don't need a gun, a country where I dont need a gun but I have the right and ability to own one. What I dont want to live in is a country where if someone illegal owns a gun and wants to kill me I am required to sacrifice my life in the name of making guns illegal.

While there are many things I don't like about america the one thing they got right is gun rights. Just as you described its a place where you dont need to own a gun, a place where getting shot with a gun capable of shooting 100 bullets a minute is so incredibly rare it is virtually an impossibility. But a country where I have a right to own a gun and in the one in a million chance my life is ever threatened i have the means and the rights to preserve it.

Contrast that with the UK where simply carrying a screwdriver with you means you will go to jail just on the off chance you might choose to use it as a weapon.

@ster @arteteco Correct, we are only talking about those very rare cases because despite being rare they are very important as to why guns serve a need (as opposed to just being recreational).

But you explicitly suggests that the purpose of a gun is solely (or mostly) to kill and that most uses of a gun is to kill. That is a flat out wrong assertion. So that needed to be pointed out.

@ster @arteteco Because while protection is a VERY rare use for a gun compared to more frequent uses (sport) it is still entirely relevant because it can serve that purpose when the very rare case of violence occurs.

@ster @arteteco Most guns are used for sport, shooting at targets. It is an olympic sport you know.

@iamduck @ster @arteteco Incorrect.

@ster @arteteco Most guns arent used to murder either. People who use drugs often accidentally (or even intentionally) kill people. The same is true of a gun owner, most will never harm anyone. Sometimes they do.

Personally I think the comparison has a lot of validity to it.

@ster @lerk@comm.network @iamduck Guns are also illegal for killing people too. Only time you can legally shoot someone with a gun is if they are about to kill you.

So in both the UK AND in the US guns are illegal to use in that fashion. The big difference is that in the UK if your about to be killed you have to sacrifice yourself and die since a handgun would be illegal. In the US you are allowed to save your own life by injuring the person trying to take it.

I'd say the US is the ones who got the morals right on that one.

@lerk@comm.network @ster @iamduck The last part of my argument was centered around your point that a gun owner hurts others while a drug addict only hurts themselves.

I was pointing out that isnt true. A Drug user is probably far more likely to hurt someone else than a gun owner would be (at least based on what I've seen of heroin addicts).

@ster @arteteco Also lets be clear" legally restricted" almost always is the exact same thing as a ban on some particular set of guns. So what you are really saying is "I dont believe in banning all guns, i only believe in banning certain classes of guns, or only banning access to guns for certain people"

A ban is still a ban even if that ban is conditional.

@ster @arteteco I agree that a gun is very different than a drug. But the comparison to drugs is specific to the argument regarding guns being used for suicide. so for that particular scope in the argument I'd say the comparison is valid. Both deal with things mot people agree is undesirable (suiide and drug use) but deal with a persons body autonomy to make such decisions.

I 100% support body autonomy which means while ill do everything i can to discourage people to kill themselves or do heroin, in the end i will recognize it as a right they have and should have all the same.

@ster @lerk@comm.network @iamduck I think the part of your thinking that seems really wrong and off to me is this idea that you keep equating "no one should ever do X" to "Therefore X should be illegal". I dont think that is a valid argument. Particularly when statistics show that making it illegal either has no effect on usage rates or in some cases causes it to increase.

@lerk@comm.network @ster @iamduck I'd argue the vast majority of times a gun is shot in america no one is injured or hurt. The vast majority of bullets shot are at targets for the sport of it with no harm coming from it.

As for hunting, well I'd say that is a far more ethical choice than eating farmed food (at least the animal lived a life int he wild before dying). Though I would love to see people never kill animals or humans again.

With that said I suspect a person addicted to heroin has a much higher chance of killing someone in their life time then a sober person with a gun. My uncle was a heroin addict and I came pretty close to being killed accidentally on several occasions (car accidents). On the flip side i have dozens of friends with guns and never once had a close call with my life or even an accident.

@lerk@comm.network @ster @iamduck I agree that the solution to drugs (and guns) is a social one, not a legal one. I would love a world where no one wanted or ever needed a gun (but still legal). But i feel that laws arent the way to get there. Just as I would love a world where no one did heroin but it was still legal.