Scandinavia and the World
 

Comments #9828921:


I know gun-fu 29 2, 5:26am

@Steeeve The widely spread mantras based on knowing how a firearm physically works without considering the implications of how that knowledge is obtained, presuming this knowledge is always taught, and then desperately clinging to any excuse to avoid considering these things is something I find fascinating. Note I mean in general; I have no idea about you personally and am partially writing this because I'm hoping to hear from someone who doesn't do this on why it's so common.

For instance, the point "Kids should be taught the dangers of guns." This is entirely TRUE, but large numbers of Americans jump to "therefore we should presume everyone otherwise legally able to own guns has been taught this." Which doesn't appear to be a CONSCIOUS idea ("of course I don't believe that" as a response the hearing it out loud), but still one regularly presumed when discussing how to limit firearm access to people who aren't aware of how a gun works (often shown by insisting another idea shouldn't have to account for what happens where this doesn't hold).

And when I say "limit firearm access," I don't mean "limited by the government." Presumably in your town letting kids start handling guns before being taught "the dangers of guns," was extremely abnormal for parents to do.

Which can't really be discounted by declaring "each individual example is just an idiot," as a reason not to consider this (again, something I've seen often; I have no idea about you specifically). There's no law of physics that would make the dog firing any less lethal if the gun had been improperly stored by someone else.
___________________________
Another common argument structure I see is to group laws (in this case I am referring to government) that would restrict who can obtain what firearms into two groups, that appear purely to presume a particular argument. Group 1 is labelled "gun control," and taken to necessarily lead to all firearms being banned. Group 2 is labeled "just common sense," and not "gun control," without leading to the same results.

One case I've noticed with a very fast slip between the two is from "that can't be true because it would be illegal for anyone with an FLL," to "applying that same law to people without an FLL would be overly burdensome and would become a slippery slope" (note to non-Americans: FLL as in Federal Firearms License). Note I don't bring up FLL holders in the example this precedes and when I've been able to ask, the law that applies to FLL holders is consider to "just be common sense." Usually backed up with "it just is," whe asked to do into detail.

Again, this does not appear to be CONSCIOUS idea, which is why I find is so fascinating. Well, that and the assertion it isn't merely firearms but also soviet style revolutions that are a legal right (often while declaring people who don't consider the latter a right somehow fail to understand the soviet union was horrible).