Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

home.dartmouth.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

#81

Post by rootusrootus »

potsandpans wrote: post #80
lazyasciiart wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teen suicide in households with a gun is a very interesting stat to bring up for this. Suicide in general is higher for gun owners, which can be handwaved away as “that’s my right”. But suicide is higher for children of gun owners? That seems like a tough risk to justify.

[flagged]

> What should we do about it?

Outlaw swimming pools, clearly.

Shit. I have a pool. My kids like it. And I have guns! How about instead, we do nothing. We have more than enough to worry about already just with the sentient hazards in homes.

Re: How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

#83

Post by potsandpans »

rootusrootus wrote: post #81
potsandpans wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> What should we do about it? Outlaw swimming pools, clearly. Shit. I have a pool. My kids like it. And I have guns! How about instead, we do nothing . We have more than enough to worry about already just with the sentient hazards in homes.

Brother, were aligned

Re: How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

#84

Post by constantius »

kashunstva wrote: post #29

> we find that a socially optimal level of ownership is often greater than zero I suppose one could model this in some way. But as a pacifist, vegan and never owner of firearms, I’m genuinely clueless as to how this could be. Is the social optimality here a function possessing weapons for hunting, which can be a social activity?

I can describe myself in the same way as you, and yet, if I lived in a country where ownership is allowed, I'd always vote to keep it so, even without having the intention of owning a weapon myself, because otherwise the balance of power shifts too much in the favour of the State/ruling class.

I disagree with the sibling comments about defending the country against an invader (if your country is facing invasion, weapons will be readily available) and defending yourself against crime (it's a non-issue in any non-failed state, and in a failed state weapons are readily available anyway and rarely make any difference).

But in a world where wealth inequality is increasing, where surveillance is ever more present, the tiny probability of the population being able to resist when it finally rises up justifies the very tangible downsides of an armed population.

I am aware that there are many arguments against this view, but I think the downsides of an authoritarian state with a monopoly on violence are too dire to be brushed aside.

Re: How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

#85

Post by thrance »

rayiner wrote: post #62
kashunstva wrote: post #29

> we find that a socially optimal level of ownership is often greater than zero I suppose one could model this in some way. But as a pacifist, vegan and never owner of firearms, I’m genuinely clueless as to how this could be. Is the social optimality here a function possessing weapons for hunting, which can be a social activity?

In the absence of firearms, the person who has the next most dangerous weapon can easily dominate everyone else. The country where I'm from was disarmed by the British to keep us from fighting them. But armed gangs still terrorize people with knives and machetes and whatnot. Some fraction of the population in any society is antisocial. A non-zero rate of firearms ownership allows the people who aren't antisocial to s…

> A non-zero rate of firearms ownership allows the people who aren't antisocial to suppress those who are antisocial and maintain peace.

Do you have an example of such a place? What you're describing is called vigilantism, and usually creates more issues than it solves.

Re: How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

#86

Post by soco »

rayiner wrote: post #62
kashunstva wrote: post #29

> we find that a socially optimal level of ownership is often greater than zero I suppose one could model this in some way. But as a pacifist, vegan and never owner of firearms, I’m genuinely clueless as to how this could be. Is the social optimality here a function possessing weapons for hunting, which can be a social activity?

In the absence of firearms, the person who has the next most dangerous weapon can easily dominate everyone else. The country where I'm from was disarmed by the British to keep us from fighting them. But armed gangs still terrorize people with knives and machetes and whatnot. Some fraction of the population in any society is antisocial. A non-zero rate of firearms ownership allows the people who aren't antisocial to s…

Is this theory working in the US? Do we see the social people with weapons suppressing the antisocial gangs with weapons? If you see proof for this, good. But I don't see it. Also, one downside of firearms is collateral victims.

Re: How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

#87

Post by HWR_14 »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #56
HWR_14 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to bet this is defined by some base levels in their equations as a default utility. So they aren't trying to say what the optimal level for the various uses of guns are, they are using math to prove that people are being driven to purchase more guns than that level, whatever that level is.

This is why it’s sometimes hard to take the soft sciences seriously.

I have no idea why you be dismissive of using an unspecified variable as a baseline. People do it in every subject.

Re: How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

#88

Post by soco »

constantius wrote: post #84
kashunstva wrote: post #29

> we find that a socially optimal level of ownership is often greater than zero I suppose one could model this in some way. But as a pacifist, vegan and never owner of firearms, I’m genuinely clueless as to how this could be. Is the social optimality here a function possessing weapons for hunting, which can be a social activity?

I can describe myself in the same way as you, and yet, if I lived in a country where ownership is allowed, I'd always vote to keep it so, even without having the intention of owning a weapon myself, because otherwise the balance of power shifts too much in the favour of the State/ruling class. I disagree with the sibling comments about defending the country against an invader (if your country is facing invasion, weap…

This is the first use case for firearms I can understand. I hate it, I hate even that we have to have this discussion in a so-called civilized world, but here we are, and I understand it.

Re: How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

#89

Post by archagon »

constantius wrote: post #84
kashunstva wrote: post #29

> we find that a socially optimal level of ownership is often greater than zero I suppose one could model this in some way. But as a pacifist, vegan and never owner of firearms, I’m genuinely clueless as to how this could be. Is the social optimality here a function possessing weapons for hunting, which can be a social activity?

I can describe myself in the same way as you, and yet, if I lived in a country where ownership is allowed, I'd always vote to keep it so, even without having the intention of owning a weapon myself, because otherwise the balance of power shifts too much in the favour of the State/ruling class. I disagree with the sibling comments about defending the country against an invader (if your country is facing invasion, weap…

Except the people with guns are often aligned with regressive/authoritarian regimes. Which makes the problem much worse.

Is there any country where guns are politically neutral? Switzerland, maybe? Certainly not the US.

Re: How Fear and Social Pressure Are 'Overarming' the U.S.

#90

Post by black6 »

soco wrote: post #86
rayiner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of firearms, the person who has the next most dangerous weapon can easily dominate everyone else. The country where I'm from was disarmed by the British to keep us from fighting them. But armed gangs still terrorize people with knives and machetes and whatnot. Some fraction of the population in any society is antisocial. A non-zero rate of firearms ownership allows the people who aren't antisocial to s…

Is this theory working in the US? Do we see the social people with weapons suppressing the antisocial gangs with weapons? If you see proof for this, good. But I don't see it. Also, one downside of firearms is collateral victims.

No, because the state owns a monopoly on violence and cracks down hard on vigilantism.
Post reply on HN