If you are upset because Joe Biden has started taking steps toward getting the USA's gun violence under control, you are the problem.

@soundwave
Crimimals have guns and gun control laws will do more to stop law abiding citizens from getting them, than criminals. They are about as effective at preventing crime as drug laws have been. And thanks to the drug laws, the network for the distribution of illegal firearms is already in place. That's just my opinion, but I'd love to hear exactly why you'd disagree with any of that.

@Diptchip Of course I cannot disagree that criminals will always have guns, no matter how illegal they are, no matter how hard they are to get. But it's not criminals who are shooting up schools, universities, and entire families, it's mentally ill people. Like criminals, mentally ill people also cannot be controlled with laws. But if the weapons are not in easy reach, they will not have them, therefore will not be able to use them.

@soundwave
I would argue that a majority of our population are borderline mentally ill and that restricting the rights of the innocent based on mental health is a slippery slope.

@Diptchip
Then, as I said, you are the problem. That attitude is shared by many USA citizens, and just because many of you think alike doesn't mean that you are all correct.

@soundwave
Care to elaborate? Lol I'm not trying to offend you. I told you what I believe and I'd love to cover why I believe it. If I'm upset about Biden, and I wasn't, it's because I value the rights of Americans. How does this make me part of the problem? I already own most of the guns I've really wanted, so gun contol isn't really something I worry about. If you're gunna accuse me of being part of the problem, at least tell me why you believe it.
Do you not agree that a significant percentage of Americans are mentally ill? I think we would both agree that the followers of most religions are mentally ill. Really wanna find common ground with you and discuss this rationally.

@Diptchip

I'm not offended. I am glad someone has chosen to engage with me on this, which is exactly why I posted such an inflammatory unpopular opinion where I knew it would be read. Thanks for being the one to debate with me rationally.

My main reason for wanting USA's citizens to fall out of love with guns is that citizens of civilised countries should not feel the need to be armed. With any type of weapon. Having any weapons in the house should be purely a personal choice, whether it be for martial arts skills training, hunting, or sport.

And this is what almost all civilised countries enjoy. The citizens never assume that any one particular house they walk/drive by will have a lethal weapon inside. (Of course, sharp kitchen knives do not count). The default mindset is that their neighbourhood, their city, their state and country is largely a safe place to be, because it is a reasonable assumption that the number of deadly weapons in any zone is much smaller than the number of people in that zone - no matter how big or small a zone you consider.

But in the USA, the paradigm is that everyone assumes that everyone else will have one or more deadly weapon, either on their person, or at home, or both. It is so very common, that if one finds someone who has zero weapons, that person is regarded as a rarity.

This *must* inevitably lead to a default state of being, that every single person is constantly aware, to a greater or lesser degree, that at any moment, someone might kill them.

So whether you admit it or not, you are all literally in fear for your lives every second of every day. It's always there, like a benign tumour in your insides that you know about but is inoperable, it may turn malignant and kill you at any random time.

You are jogging alone. You cannot help but have in the back of your mind, an alert signal that means be afraid ... death is near.

You are on the train or the bus. Anyone around you might suddenly open fire.

You are an 8 year old child in school. You have been drilled, trained, that any moment a terrifying monster might burst through your classroom door and kill everyone in the room.

And the monster might be your teenage brother.

This is not right.

This is sick.

A country's population should not have to live in fear.

Oh, but some will respond with a quip about how every innocent, peaceful person should ALSO have a gun, so that they can defend themselves.

To that I say - no citizen of a civilised country should have to be prepared to defend their life and loved ones by fighting to the death at a moment's notice.

This is incompatible with the basic human right - that everyone has the right to live in peace.

I know that 'Peace' is hard-won and must be defended - but that is what the armed forces are for. Their purpose for existing is to defend against outside threats. Citizens can definitely claim the right to have their country take care of them by having a strong defence force.

But citizens should not have to feel that they should also be able to personally defend themselves from enemies that could attack them from within (the country), at any time.

One's own country should be one's "safe space" where one can live in peace, and raise children who can live in innocence and wonder and joy and curiosity and play and creativity, ... instead of learn how to throw their colouring-in books at the urban Guerilla in their classroom doorway.

@soundwave
Having looked at this statistically, I can not rationalize a fear of firearms related injury.

In any country and by any means, people intentionally harm other people.
Statistically, it seems we're twice as likely to die intentionally through self harm than from harm from another. And the odds of dying at the hands of a mass shooter are about the same as the odds of dying from being struck by lightning. (~30/year)

If you're arguement is based on fear, please elaborate on how it's rational.

@Diptchip

You're right of course - fear itself is not a rational argument.

But the detrimental effects that fear has on the human body and the quality of life of the citizens of a country, are good reasons for a country to take steps to minimise the level of fear pervading a society.

Fear is literally bad for your health. It has a physiological effect on the body and it negatively affects the brain. Fear is bad for your physical health and your mental health.

The physiological effect of fear that I'm talking about is stress. Stress affects people's bodies and their minds. The business world knows this. There is a well-known Stress vs. Productivity curve which shows that people need a little bit of stress in order to maximise their productivity, but that too much or too little stress reduces productivity. Too much stress puts your mind and your body in flight-or-fight mode, which reduces the activity in the brain's temporal lobe and causes more activity in the ancient, reptilian part of the brain which deals with instinct and basic survival. This mental state means that the creative, clever, problem-solving and imaginative parts of your brain are relegated to working in low-power mode. This is why too much stress makes workers' productivity - particularly white-collar workers' productivity - sharply drop. In a nutshell, it's hard to think clearly when you are in a state of anxiety. It's extremely hard to think imaginatively, think freely, think original, new thoughts - when your brain is in "scared & nervous" mode. It's also hard to learn new things while you are stressed and/or anxious. So students' learning effectiveness is reduced when they are stressed or scared. If a company's staff are too stressed, it reduces company's overall performance. This is true for a country's economy as well. If the citizens of a country are stressed, it reduces the entire country's overall wealth. It's literally bad for a country's economy to have the population too stressed. A country's economic ups and downs follow similar cause-effect relationships as the stock market. When consumer confidence and investor confidence rises and falls, the stock market rises and falls. The market responds quickly to the smell of fear, and so do countries' economies. So, fear pervading the population of a country is literally bad for that country's economy.

My reasons for thinking that fear is a 'bad thing' are that I want people to live in peace and to be happy and I want countries to be prosperous and progressive, constantly increasing the quality of life for all citizens. In order for the overall quality of life to continually improve, the country and the individual citizens of the country need to continually invest in the future. And this, in turn, requires that society provides people with a feeling of confidence that life is safe, and will continue to be safe. People need to have a feeling of confidence that life is safe, in order to take the risks that are necessary to invest in the future. People know that to be able to look forward to a better tomorrow, they need to work hard toward *making* a better tomorrow. People will not put in the work that creates a better tomorrow unless they are very sure there will very probably be a return on that investment. A pre-requisite to have that sense of confidence, is that people firstly need to feel safe. In order to be comfortable with delayed gratification, people need to feel that patience is rewarded - which requires an underlying scaffolding of peace and safety.

So, my case is that from a social and economic point of view, I believe it is important for people to feel safe and secure in their lives, in order to be able to do the things that are required to maintain a healthy economy with the aim of constantly improving life for everyone. The more fear we have in the structure of our society, the weaker is the scaffolding of confidence that the population needs for inventiveness, investment and innovation.

The USA is ostensibly largely focussed on ongoing, continuing investment in order to improve the overall wealth and power of the country, a goal which the population supports because it will naturally result in improved quality of its citizens' lives.

But this is incongruous with the idea that people can work at their best while they have fear in their thoughts and feelings 24/7.

Fear is literally bad for your mental health. It shuts down creativity and keeps the brain and mind in survival mode. It affects all of your thoughts, all of your decisions, all of your plans, actions and reactions.

With that affecting everyone, constantly, whether you are aware of it or not, it is definitely harming your country's economy.

The question then, is, how much is USA's gun culture affecting the wealth and status of the USA on the world stage? I don't know. I don't know how anyone could estimate it. If say USA's citizens are eg. 5% more scared of their countrymen than the citizens of other civilised countries' feel, does that affect the USA's GDP by 5%, or by more or less than 5%? I don't know. But I do know that it will definitely not be zero.

The problem with paradigms is that the people who are inside them literally cannot see what's in their own paradigm because they cannot imagine what their paradigm looks like from outside of it. They cannot see the pro's and con's of their own paradigm because they can't "switch off" their paradigm in order to step outside of it for a moment, turn around and look back at it.

The rest of the civilised world looks at the USA's gun culture and sees that it is full-on, bat-shit insane. But the people who are inside the USA and inside the gun culture, can't see what the rest of the world so clearly sees - that the way you are living is literally bad for you, and we wish that you could just see for a minute that there is another way of living and it might - just might - be better than yours.