[ndsipa_pomu]

> I'd love to hear any additional ideas you have other than violating the rights of citizens.

That's a strange take. There's citizens' rights involved in not being shot at and also the right to own guns, but when people are being killed, I would think that the right to life would take precedence over introducing some rule over gun ownership.

Here in the UK, we have strict rules on gun ownership (which I'm not particularly familiar with) which involve some kind of assessment (to prevent unstable people from owning them) and the guns have to be kept in a suitable locked cabinet. It's entirely possible for people to own guns for sport or for culling animals etc. and yet we have a very small amount of gun crime.

[ern_ave]

> I would think that the right to life would take precedence

Well, let's do a thought experiment to test this. Which of these two rights takes precedence: (1) life (specifically in this case, the right to not be murdered) or (2) freedom of movement

That's an easy question, isn't it? (1) takes precedence. But how many 9's of protection are you willing to "purchase" at the expense of (2)? How much of (2) are you willing to give up in order to get a little more of (1)?

If we reduce (2) to 0 ...by locking every person in a padded cell, then we can achieve 99.99% protection of (1).

Presumably though, you don't like that idea. Presumably, you'll want to be let out of the padded cell, and get a bit of right (2) back. But giving you a bit of (2) back is going to cost someone their life! If we let you and others out of the padded cell, someone somewhere is going to get murdered.

What this thought experiment demonstrates is that the issue is not as simple as, "(1) takes precedence over (2)" - the thought experiment demonstrates that there is an amount of (2) that you will not spend in order to purchase a marginal increase in (1) - a situation where (2) actually takes precedence.

> Here in the UK, we have strict rules on gun ownership

And I totally respect that. Just to be clear though, "gun ownership" isn't really the issue. Gun ownership is a proxy for the actual right: self defense. You place a low value on the right to defend yourself and your family. Again, I totally respect that. You've "spent" that right to purchase lower gun crime. Have I mentioned how much I respect your personal decision?

As for me, I value the right to self defense above all. I've looked at the data, and I've realized that I'm much more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death than I am (well, was when I was in school) to be in a school shooting.

So to me, having actually looked at that data, it seems obvious that the right to self defense should take precedence. I think that my way of thinking is perfectly rational, and I think you're way of thinking is not ...but I totally respect your personal decision. I'm sure you also respect mine.

[withinboredom]

I have no clue what I just read or what kind of mental gymnastics are required to say that a right to a weapon overrides a right to live.

It used to blow my mind when I moved here (Netherlands) that I wasn't allowed to use a weapon to defend myself... but then you realize ... basically nobody has weapons.

[Zigurd]

An irony is that guns are vastly more often used for self harm than for self defense. These supposed defenders of rights are often losing their own lives and the lives of family members with the instruments they demand to have a right to have.

[ern_ave]

I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Here's what I think just happened:

Me: I value the right to self defense

You: Guns are used for self harm more often than self defense [as an aside, I don't disagree that this is true - I've heard this stat many times]

You: This is ironic!

Please help me to understand why you think that's ironic. What do you feel would be a non-ironic position? Is it this....

Me: I value the right to self defense, but one day I might want to kill myself, so I guess I'd better give up the right to self defense.

Is that a non-ironic position? To me that seems like an irrational position. Those two issues (self defense and self harm) seem orthogonal, and conflating them because of a superficial similarity (they both involve guns) seems odd.

[withinboredom]

Ok. Now this is logic I understand. Nobody is saying you don’t have a right to self defense. The question should be: why do you have a right to bring a gun to a fist fight?

[ern_ave]

> The question should be: why do you have a right to bring a gun to a fist fight?

Great question. The answer is: bad people are often significantly stronger than their victims.

Have you ever seen this video [1]? The woman is 72 years old. She might be able to defend herself with a gun, but she has no chance with fists.

How about this video [2]? I have many, many examples like this. It's honestly kind of terrible that you hadn't considered this: guns give average women a better chance against strong, violent men.

So the question should be: why do you seek to deny women this right?

[1] https://imgur.com/a/OVaMWHB

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvXDLTTdQFE

[ern_ave]

> I have no clue what I just read

A lot of people are incapable of contending with hypotheticals or thought experiments. It's okay.

If you'd like to try again, I encourage you to read up to the point where something doesn't make sense. Quote only that sentence, and ask me to explain.

Notice how I'm not even asking you to read the whole thing - just to the point where you have trouble. This is very reasonable.