[abfan1127]

I'd argue your argument is in bad faith. Guns are tools, that can be used to kill people, just like knives, clubs, or other weapons. Guns are also tools for ensuring equity in a potentially violent world. You don't need to be 6'2 250lbs to defend yourself with a gun from a criminal or violent government. Its also convenient for you to decide that others don't "need" to protect themselves from situations that they've deemed necessary.

[duped]

The overarching point I'm making is that the government seizing $2,000 in cash from you is not the same as seizing a $2,000 gun from you, because the $2,000 in cash isn't a potentially immediate threat to the public. Red flag laws are one of the very few pro-active tools for law enforcement.

I think any argument around guns that focuses on ideological thought experiments like self defense from a "violent government" is not worth exploring. Because then you're talking about how to organize an armed insurrection, not how to reduce mass shootings and domestic partner violence.

> Its also convenient for you to decide that others don't "need" to protect themselves from situations that they've deemed necessary.

And it's convenient for the craziest people in our society to have easy access to weapons and ammunition because of widespread paranoia about defending yourself from those people. Seems like the easy solution is to make access to weapons harder!

[fasa99]

What puts me off about the argument is along the lines of "and because of such and such, now numerically less guns exist in public, and that's -a good thing-"

For me this smacks of California style government i.e. "we've made gas and energy so expensive that people use less energy, and environmentally that's -a good thing-" or "we've made permit regulations so bad nobody is able to build anything anymore and environmentally that's -a good thing-"

The crux of these things is that if you presume that these are basic rights: not having property confiscating, building a house without too much red tape, free market energy economy - then we have arrived at -a good thing- via -an unethical thing- and thus it's a good outcome through an unethical means, or "fruit from the poison tree" as ethics states.

From a legal perspective, these are trying to avoid a completely hypothetical scenario of Peter's hypothetical gun hypothetically shooting Paul, or Peter's hypothetical +20% pollution hurting the life of Paul, and George got jammed up by the law and hates it, but the lawmaker who is worried solely about Paul is quite pleased with himself about having saved Paul from the hypothetical which may or may not have actually happened.

[ruthmarx]

> The crux of these things is that if you presume that these are basic rights:

That's the problem though, isn't it? Less guns should exist in public, and the 'right' the US has shouldn't have been extended as far as it has, so it needs to be choked and leashed.

Same with utilities...they might be a right, but the specific means of generation isn't necessarily a right, and maybe it shouldn't be.

[duped]

> What puts me off about the argument is along the lines of "and because of such and such, now numerically less guns exist in public, and that's -a good thing-"

I did not make that point, but I also don't understand yours.

[giantg2]

If they're actually crazy like you claim, then they lose their weapons upon an involuntary commitment. That is by far the better outcome (assuming peoper due process) since they'll get actual help for their problems and not just the removal of one of many deadly weapons they can use.

[purpleblue]

I'm very pro 2nd amendment, but guns are not tools and it's a fallacy to say that.

Guns are used to kill something. In hunting they are used to kill animals, and otherwise they are used to kill other people, or yourself in the case of suicide. You don't do anything with a gun except kill or attempt to kill something.

[giantg2]

Unless you're a professional shooter, such as in the Olympics? Some people make a living using a gun that never kills anything. Even police rarely fire their weapons. They are more often used to foster compliance without any injury than to kill.

But yes, in general killing or potential killing is the purpose. But this reasoning implies that killing is bad even when there are legitimate circumstances.

[purpleblue]

I think your reasoning is flawed. When you are aiming for targets with a gun, there is no utility in that. That's like saying a basketball is a tool. Neither guns nor basketballs are tools.

Also, I never once implied that killing is bad. For example, killing animals for food is not bad. Also, killing someone who is trying to kill you is not bad.

[giantg2]

"something (such as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession"

Websters even considers books as tools as they relate to scholars. By the definition, they are tools. In the context of hunting (and policing, and self defense), they absolutely offer utility.

I don't know what you meant to imply or not. But colloquially, when those statements are made they usually imply a negative view of it. I would bet that more than a few readers would have read it with that in mind. What is evident based on your prior comment and this one is that you do not consider utility to include killing.

[throw10920]

> general killing or potential killing is the purpose

I'd like to emphasize the "potential" here even more - one of the greatest uses of guns is as as a deterrent, and this is worth differentiating from actually killing.

People who claim that the only use for a gun is to kill are factually wrong, and you can point this out.

[jachee]

> Guns are tools, that can be used to kill people, just like knives, clubs or other weapons

What non killing-or-practicing-killing use do handguns have? Zero.

Surely there must be better ways of “ensuring equity” than threat of death.

Also, if you think a handgun is going to protect you “from a … violent government” you should see what happens (or really, doesn’t happen) when a handgun round hits modern tank plate.

[giantg2]

"What non killing-or-practicing-killing use do handguns have? Zero."

This argument implies that killing is never justified. Society in general seems to disagree with that. Killing as a last resort to protect yourself is considered reasonable.

Also, there are remote areas where it would be much more likely for the killing to take place against animals than humans. These sorts of scenarios seem to be overlooked quite frequently in these arguments.

[jachee]

Killing another human IS never justified. You’re not a judge, jury or executioner. It should never, ever be up to one person to decide if someone else should live or die. Especially not in the heat of the moment.

In your remote area hypothetical, a rifle would be the appropriate tool. I was very specifically talking about handguns, which are most frequently used to kill the person holding it[0][1], and it’s getting worse[2], hence the Red Flag laws that started this entire thread. And that’s the reason there’s a significant difference between a pile of cash and the equivalent value handgun should absolutely not be treated equally.

0: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/05/24/suicides-...

1: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-...

2: https://www.cdc.gov/firearm-violence/php/data-trends/firearm...

[throw10920]

> Killing another human IS never justified.

The logical conclusion from this is that if someone is going to kill you, and you have the option to stop them via possible-fatal means, you have to let them kill you. I don't think most people agree with this ideology, or that it's compatible with...any of the common systems of morality.

> It should never, ever be up to one person to decide if someone else should live or die.

This is inconsistent with reality. Criminals don't adhere to this belief, and so it doesn't work for anyone who might be attacked by a criminal, either.

[giantg2]

"Killing another human IS never justified. You’re not a judge, jury or executioner. It should never, ever be up to one person to decide if someone else should live or die. Especially not in the heat of the moment."

The courts find justifiable homicides often. Statute, code, and case law even define specific instances when it is justified. That's not one person, but many creating those. The only person who can make a decision in the moment is the person who is there. They have to live with that decision, but nobody else can make it for them.

"In your remote area hypothetical, a rifle would be the appropriate tool."

Not really. Handguns are the prevailing tool of choice due to the ease of carrying them while performing other tasks. Sure, rifles and shotguns are better choices for hunting, but get burdensome if fishing, foraging, working, etc.

"I was very specifically talking about handguns, which are most frequently used to kill the person holding it[0][1], and it’s getting worse[2], hence the Red Flag laws that started this entire thread."

They might be the tool of choice for suicides, and that suicides are more common than homicides. However, that has nothing to do with their "most frequent use". There are plenty of uses that don't result in death. If you only focus on the negatives, then your perspective will be skewed and you can come to a valid value proposition. The numbers have been trending down and have only ticked up slightly. Your argument also assumes that suicide is always wrong. Most of the people I know who committed suicide did so because they had terminal dementias. Perhaps it's not as big of a problem as the gross numbers suggest if we dive into it deeper. There are also stats out there that show defensive gun use us more common that firearm injuries.

Finally, red flag laws are not primarily about preventing suicide. Existing laws about involuntary commitment better handle it because they offer actual help whereas red flag laws take away only one of many methods of suicide and don't offer any real help. They were primarily created to prevent mass shootings by creating a a version of existing protection from abuse orders that didn't require domestic or family relations.

[throw10920]

> What non killing-or-practicing-killing use do handguns have? Zero.

This is factually wrong. Guns are extremely useful as deterrents, even when never fired.

> Also, if you think a handgun is going to protect you “from a … violent government” you should see what happens (or really, doesn’t happen) when a handgun round hits modern tank plate.

This has been debunked a long time ago, in Afghanistan, and in most other authoritarian regimes - governments need a disarmed populace in order to stay in power. You cannot have tanks driving around on the streets, policing opposition - actual humans have to do the policing.

[akimbostrawman]

>Also, if you think a handgun is going to protect you “from a … violent government” you should see what happens (or really, doesn’t happen) when a handgun round hits modern tank plate

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/779/561/67c...

[fennecbutt]

Idk I feel like it just increases incidences of "I have a gun and therefore I win this argument".

I'd lean towards saying that there are many times more misuses of a gun than "a good guy with a gun". Wonder if there are stats on lawful shootings vs unlawful.

[giantg2]

Yes, there are a number of stats out there on defensive uses of a firearm vs misuse. Every one that I have seen shows a net positive on the side of defensive uses. CDC has some numbers out there that seem to be respectable if you'd like to look at them.