[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...