I grew up around guns. I was a pretty good shot -- expert with the M16, M60.

But I own no guns now. I never will.

I simply don't understand how someone can feel safer around a loaded gun. It's a fallacy to think that because you've gone through training, or that you go to the range, or whatever, that you are better equipped to handle a weapon; it's akin to claiming that you are safer walking around with a lit stick of dynamite -- just because you have done it a lot.

Which leads to why I felt so much safer in Germany. It wasn't the idea that criminals didn't have guns, it was that every empty-headed fool didn't have one. The real problem is that I am subjected to every fool's second-ammendment rights. It's not just that they can blow their own head off with their foolishness, but that me and my family are also endangered by them.

Although they may be our family, friends and neighbors; although they may be good people; they endanger us through their "rights." I would much rather live in the "danger" of a place where only criminals, police and soldiers carry weapons than to live in the "safety" of a place where any fool with a pinch of paranoia who has watched too many action-adventure apocalyptic movies can play soldier.

And, if my opinion maters, I don't deprecate gun ownership automatically. But I do think the only path to an optimal outcome is an honest discussion about its true purpose and consequences.

That said, yeah, many gun owners don't really understand guns in the technical sense, and have very silly biases (consumer preferences, really) about what is a valid arm to possess. A lot of older hunters I've met, for example, get grumpy if they see you with any rifle that isn't a bolt-action.

I tentatively disagree with the problem of personal safety being solved in those other countries: you've stuck with the metric of "murdered", whereas there are additional ones still of note to the average citizen such as "assaulted" and "robbed". Also, we can trot out the tired refrains about diversity and whatnot and argue that those populations don't map onto ours, but let's save space.

I might agree that the firearms are not a good solution to the problem of personal safety, but they are a solution and one that has worked. I think that the problem that they help prevent is creating an irreversible monopoly in force and ensuing tyranny, which is what happens once you disarm your populace. As a veteran, surely you appreciate that.

EDIT: Changed qualifier on "one that has worked well" to "one that has worked"...don't want to blow my reply quota picking nits on the difference between "well" and "good".

Also, forgot to mention: parent's point about letting people who don't understand something regulate it is correct--if you can't even articulate the different sorts of firearms and differences thereof, why should you be allowed to restrict anyone's access to them? It's just as annoying as legislation about computer stuff.

Gun control. Cost: lessens ability of one societal subgroup to wage a violent revolution, the possibility of which puts a check on society at large, when that subgroup's grievances are legitimate. Benefit: lessens ability of one societal subgroup to wage a violent revolution, the possibility of which puts a check on society at large, when that subgroup's grievances aren't legitimate.

Strong encryption (and other anonymizing technologies). Benefit: lessens society's ability to curtail the activities of people the society doesn't like (who just happen to have different points of view). Cost: lessens society's ability to curtail the activities of people the society doesn't like (from people that are actually bad).

See, the thing about both of these things (from the point of view of an individual) is that they both form direct checks against society. In the case of encryption+anonymity, society can't know who to target, and in the case of firearms law, society will think twice about attacking others physically. So you're not going to need to deal with, say, parts of society that actually have the power to get you fired because you have a political opinion that contradicts theirs- maybe it's something completely ridiculous (like you're an actual 1945 Nazi), or maybe it's something more subtle (maybe you're Brendan Eich or James Damore). Or maybe you're an environmental or civil rights leader with some dirty laundry that would hurt you if aired.

And reality bears this out. Ever wonder why Germans are highly protective of their privacy? The Stasi, that's why- the dominant group in the geographical area of East Germany wreaked absolute havoc because society trusted them to do the right thing (just like they trusted the Nazis). Ever wonder why the Czechs are highly protective of their firearms? Same deal- their people could not advance and prosper because a certain other nation kept killing them (also the secret police thing).

These people know the evil that society does when it runs amok, and know why it can't be trusted with these tools. They favor strong protections that individuals can use to escape society's fickle desires (like banning whatever boogeyman's in the news this week). And society is notoriously bad at determining good from the bad and right from wrong; when it gets it really wrong, lots of people die. Germany, China, USSR; all societies that have very little in the way of stopping the majority from abusing its power, and all who have killed tens of millions of their own people.

Now sure, individuals in a given society may vary in how comfortable they are with trusting said society (there are some good things that can come of it; environmental regulations and affordable healthcare being two notable examples)- but to say that there are some liberties that are fundamentally incomparable is disingenuous. Unless the society you trust tells you otherwise, of course.

They also have vastly stricter gun regulation laws, and while ownership rates are high in some, the US is an extreme outlier and no other country comes even close.

Because nobody in any European country thinks they have a "right" to own a gun, most of them could if they wanted to, but they simply don't want to deal with the hassle that owning a properly regulated firearm entails.

As it should be, owning a deadly weapon is a lot of responsibility that not everybody is up for/actually wants. The importance of that responsibility gets completely lost when firearms are treated like cool toys that everybody should have and exist in abundance.

That's why headlines like "toddler shoots mother" or "dog shoots owner" don't exist in Europe, but are a sad somewhat regular thing out of the US. These toddlers and dogs didn't do that because they watched too much violent media, they did that because the actual owners of the guns where irresponsible individuals and never should have owned one in the first place.

I never claimed abolishing guns would lead to absoute safety. As you point out, there's plenty of senseless violence all over the first world, including gun violence. The difference between America and other places such as Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ is that people elsewhere do not see gun ownership as a necessary prerequisite in order to feel safe.

> The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.

The problem is that American society glorifies guns and gun violence. A good first step to changing that is to limit gun ownership to people who actually need them: farmers, police, and the military. A good second step is to limit the types of guns that are available; e.g. famers need shotguns, not semi-autos.

First, people in America can't own guns that fire '10 rounds a second' without a class 3 firearms license, which is very rare. Such guns are basically never used in mass shootings.

Second, depending on who you need to defend your home from, you may want such a gun. For example, if government or government sanctioned groups are a threat. An example of this is the killings of white farmers in South Africa. Is not just about burglars, it's about gas chambers and political threats. Always has been.

Finally, redefining safety as freedom is a truly absurd abuse of language which wipes out a critical distinction that has been heavily discussed for a long time. If this is what it takes for you to make your point make sense, your point doesn't make sense.

Just admit it. You want more safety. You're willing to give up freedom (or rather, sacrifice the freedom of others) to get it. No need to play ridiculous semantic games to pretend there are no tradeoffs here.

And I think most people are happy with that situation. Some aren't but any of their arguments are quickly smothered with a "look at the US where they can't go 18 minutes without shooting (and killing) somebody"... It's a hard argument to counter. There's no right to arm yourself, there's no enshrined want to overthrow a government... Simply put, safety wins.

So yeah... I guess they'd seize on that and say that it's all for the best. I know it isn't, you know it isn't... But if they say it enough, and find an example of 20 where encryption is costing lives, it won't be long before the public thinks it's the right idea.

I'm from East Germany originally (used to live in the US for a decade). That country was the true successor of Prussia as far as militaristic traditions go. While we did have "gun control", so no weapons other than air guns at home for most people, shooting was very much part of culture. I was taught marching like a professional soldier as part of school, before job training and studying. Same goes for shooting (small caliber weapons), throwing hand grenades (replicas of hand grenades were used in throwing exercises during normal sports lessons), how to use chemical protection gear and a gas mask, and a lot more.

The real difference, and this is my point that I think is usually missed about US gun culture, was that never, ever did it occur to me as a gun-obsessed child that if I had more than two air guns at home, or even for those, that I should ever want to use weapons against my fellow citizens.

Weapons were always for only three purposes: sports, hunting (organized and government regulated and controlled, not "for fun") and military.

In all the discussions about US gun culture, to me this is the far larger factor than just having access to guns, that the thought that this could be used in "self defense" against your own people exists. I sure had a lot of "gun fantasies" as a child and would happily have owned a "real" gun, but never, ever would it have occurred to me that I could use this against people, except for in military conflict.

You can restrict access all you want, and I'm sure that will limit some problems, but to me it seems unless there is a much, much deeper change in attitude that will only be a band aid removing the worst symptoms of a problem that goes deeper and is much more broad. This probably cannot be changed though. It's an attitude I find in too many movies produced in the US (unless it's romance or comedy and has no guns), it's all about fighting/shooting people.

I know what you are saying, but most people outside of the US see gun owning as a pretty serious problem.

I'm actually fairly pro-gun (for the UK at least), I think we're quite restrictive on the type of guns allowed (eg. larger calibre rifles would be fun down a range). But at the same time I'm very pro gun-control; they should be licensed, inspected, restricted in type and how/where you're allowed to carry, etc.

Overall I'm happy with how it's worked out, I'd rather not have guns than have the problems of mass gun ownership.

> please stay where you are.

I intent to do so. I never intended to move to NZ due to restrictions on things I like.

> maniacal about spreading

I never asked to spread my opinions to other countries. I have only attempted to give a fair depiction of how ineffective the restrictions on firearms ownership are.

Please read this for my exact concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12028162

> kind of obsessive insistence on widespread gun ownership [...] that some Americans have, I find very disturbing.

(Nice you nicked the bit about it being religion before I had a go at it ;))

No I don't think I am being obsessive. I think if you read my original post you will understand better. I am saying "I don't want to go here because X".

This boils down to: I have N places to choose to live in for retirement. In choice A I am allowed to do everything I want, in choice B I am not. Why move to choice B?

That makes no sense to me. I also don't think that is an obsessive attitude.

Edit: (I clicked reply a little too soon)

I'm sorry to say, but New Zealand and Australia aren't the only safe and friendly countries in the world. I can move to many places other then there and get the same protection and standard of living (often for a cheaper price point) then in New Zealand.

In almost all other western countries the notion of needing a gun to feel safe is totally alien. The context in which the American gun debate happens is rather unique and the real discussion should be about how to change the context/environment, not just banning guns.

the greatest benefit from guns is their deterrent qualities, which are very difficult to quantify. We never hear of the thefts or violence or other horrors that don't happen because potential perpetrators cannot manage the risk that their victims may fight back.

Or how about mass genocide that has occurred in the past in several countries shortly after disarming the population in relatively recent history? The argument against that is always "Not in modern (post-Y2K) times/first world countries, just look at Australia and/or U.K!" and I don't find that argument very convincing.

I'm not scared of the U.S government going tyrannical/genocidal. But what about people who are refugees of countries where that happened? What would they think? I see no reason to disarm a population other than the ruling class fearing an armed population or a paranoid/ignorant population thinking "guns" are the problem. (Hint: People are the problem, not guns.)

Bad guys don't need laws to buy guns and murderers have no problem selecting other weapons when there is a lack of guns.

Homicide rates per capita are very similar before and after the gun buyback in Australia. "Murders with firearms" decreased though, so I guess they can pat themselves on the back for being just as murderous but with different weapons? Same trend with the U.K. Banning guns gave an "ease of mind" but didn't actually do anything. Similar to the TSA: security theater.

I do not find gun control arguments to be compelling and firmly believe in the right for every individual to protect themselves.

FWIW I do not own and likely will never own a gun.

" You pretty much see guns everywhere. Yet at the same time, you don't have the fear that someone will randomly start shooting people."

I would much rather live in a community where people owning or carrying guns was no more worrisome than them owning or carrying a pocket knife.

Sure, we get that changing US gun culture might be a bit more challenging than, say, the UK, where there weren't that many people with handguns to start off with when they were banned, and so it was particularly easy to convince even most criminals carrying wasn't worth the additional penalties. What we find bizarre is that someone buys an assault weapon in the sort of store that's ubiquitous in the US and nonexistent in other countries, walks into a mall with it because local regulations say there's no reason to apprehend somebody entering a mall with assault rifles until they've killed someone, and that event gets chalked up as a win for local gun policy because the casualties were in the single digits this time due to the rare use of a civilian gun against a mass shooter

2. This might be true for guns, but who cares?

3. In the age of tanks, machine guns, and grenades, consumer guns don't enable us to overthrow unjust governments as they did when the bill of rights was written. As such, they no longer play a role in protecting our civil rights. If anything, gun rights are frequently a talking point for Right-wing politicians who happily trample over all of our other civil liberties. As a political force, the pro-gun politics is actively harming our civil liberties.

4. Looking at the data, I don't see how your can argue this. In the US guns are used more in suicide or commission of a crime than in self-defense. In the UK, near-universal bans on guns have lead to a drastic decrease in gun deaths.