>>That would make sense, /if/ you have quality equipment and /if/ it is used correctly.<<
Which is why I recommended military or police sources for quality, and I expect gun owners to behave responsibly so they should know how to use ALL their equipment properly. Not everyone does, but far more people kill each other because they're careless with their car. That happens every day and America has zero interest in reducing car use even though it would save tens of thousands of lives.
>>...but how would a trained cop or soldier respond to someone trying to grab their gun /even if the gun is secure/?<<
Today, they often kill the attacker. In a war zone, that's often the most suitable response. For police, I don't think it is and there are better options. But America's police are glorified slavecatchers, so that explains a lot.
>>I heard that suggested once in L Earth, but I do not think it is something people are seriously considering here.<<
Plenty of people love the idea of a weapon that can't be used against them (other than maybe a club) but it's hard to do with current tech. However, biometric locks for other things are ubiquitous, so you can put one on your gun safe if you wish. I think biometrics are a terrible idea, but that's an extreme minority opinion nowadays, when most people want to unlock their phone with a fingerprint or face recognition, and don't realize that biometrics are just passwords that you can never change. >_<
>>Some people would think that putting stuff in high places or similar would be inaccessible, but with a gun I would be reluctant to do that outside of a very brief emergency storage. (Not that I expect to be handling a gun anytime soon...)<<
If it doesn't lock or at least latch (e.g. holsters, truck racks) then it is not secure.
>>The most convincing argument I ever heard for expanding gun access was that men will commonly insist women are crazy...and women often get killed by male partners-exes.<<
Exactly. Paperwork won't protect you at all. Moving won't if someone blabs, and America loves abusers a lot more than women. A gun has stopping power. Abuse is a leading reason why people, especially women, develop a sudden interest in guns.
>> That said, if needing to consistently carry a weapon, everyone in the house should have some basic safety training. You don΄t need to know how to shoot the thing, but you do need to know that they are dangerous, what the three Gun Safety rules are, and how to handle the gun without setting it off.<<
Agreed.
>> And if you have anyone in the house who is at high risk for gun violence (like, say depression) it would not hurt to brush up on that in an age-appropriate and spoon budgeting way. For a little kid it might be having a backup safe adult to call, for an adult, perhaps actual mental health training.<<
Sensible.
>>Also, I believe other non male genders may have similar problems, both in regards to cisgender bigots-terrorists and with cops.<<
True.
>> Context is important. Most likely, familiarity with the person, knowledge of their temperament, my headspace at the time, current social context, and miscellaneous other factors would play into it.<<
Agreed.
>> I am not enough of a stickler to refuse to associate with someone only due to their politics, hobbies, or past professions. I would consider if I feel safe with that specific person, and a big part of that is if we could have a respectful talk about my concerns, if need be.<<
Well, it depends on the expanse. A person who keeps a gun in a locked safe and doesn't talk about it is largely indistinguishable from a non-owner. Someone who uses a rifle a few months of the year to hunt food may talk about it then ("Hey, does anyone like venison? We tagged out this weekend and have extra." "I can use everything but the bleat.") but rarely in the off-season. Whereas someone who doesn't even own a gun but loves gun culture may talk about it obsessively and not be fun for people who aren't into that.
>> Also, my comfort level might change depending on the group I am in. I would be more concerned about certain types of bigotry if traveling with someone who has a different set of privilege than I do... <<
Yeah, it's good to keep an eye on other folks if you're adept at reading that.
>>I know what answers are right for me, and I agree that they are not the right answers for everyone. If people are respectful-polite-whatever about it, that's good enough for me.<<
That puts you ahead of most folks.
>>Also, I prefer polite discussion to arguments. Less stressful, and I might learn something! <<
Exactly. I try to keep this space conducive to that. It mostly works.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Thoughts
Date: 2025-01-27 08:56 pm (UTC)Which is why I recommended military or police sources for quality, and I expect gun owners to behave responsibly so they should know how to use ALL their equipment properly. Not everyone does, but far more people kill each other because they're careless with their car. That happens every day and America has zero interest in reducing car use even though it would save tens of thousands of lives.
>>...but how would a trained cop or soldier respond to someone trying to grab their gun /even if the gun is secure/?<<
Today, they often kill the attacker. In a war zone, that's often the most suitable response. For police, I don't think it is and there are better options. But America's police are glorified slavecatchers, so that explains a lot.
>>I heard that suggested once in L Earth, but I do not think it is something people are seriously considering here.<<
Plenty of people love the idea of a weapon that can't be used against them (other than maybe a club) but it's hard to do with current tech. However, biometric locks for other things are ubiquitous, so you can put one on your gun safe if you wish. I think biometrics are a terrible idea, but that's an extreme minority opinion nowadays, when most people want to unlock their phone with a fingerprint or face recognition, and don't realize that biometrics are just passwords that you can never change. >_<
>>Some people would think that putting stuff in high places or similar would be inaccessible, but with a gun I would be reluctant to do that outside of a very brief emergency storage. (Not that I expect to be handling a gun anytime soon...)<<
If it doesn't lock or at least latch (e.g. holsters, truck racks) then it is not secure.
>>The most convincing argument I ever heard for expanding gun access was that men will commonly insist women are crazy...and women often get killed by male partners-exes.<<
Exactly. Paperwork won't protect you at all. Moving won't if someone blabs, and America loves abusers a lot more than women. A gun has stopping power. Abuse is a leading reason why people, especially women, develop a sudden interest in guns.
>> That said, if needing to consistently carry a weapon, everyone in the house should have some basic safety training. You don΄t need to know how to shoot the thing, but you do need to know that they are dangerous, what the three Gun Safety rules are, and how to handle the gun without setting it off.<<
Agreed.
>> And if you have anyone in the house who is at high risk for gun violence (like, say depression) it would not hurt to brush up on that in an age-appropriate and spoon budgeting way. For a little kid it might be having a backup safe adult to call, for an adult, perhaps actual mental health training.<<
Sensible.
>>Also, I believe other non male genders may have similar problems, both in regards to cisgender bigots-terrorists and with cops.<<
True.
>> Context is important. Most likely, familiarity with the person, knowledge of their temperament, my headspace at the time, current social context, and miscellaneous other factors would play into it.<<
Agreed.
>> I am not enough of a stickler to refuse to associate with someone only due to their politics, hobbies, or past professions. I would consider if I feel safe with that specific person, and a big part of that is if we could have a respectful talk about my concerns, if need be.<<
Well, it depends on the expanse. A person who keeps a gun in a locked safe and doesn't talk about it is largely indistinguishable from a non-owner. Someone who uses a rifle a few months of the year to hunt food may talk about it then ("Hey, does anyone like venison? We tagged out this weekend and have extra." "I can use everything but the bleat.") but rarely in the off-season. Whereas someone who doesn't even own a gun but loves gun culture may talk about it obsessively and not be fun for people who aren't into that.
>> Also, my comfort level might change depending on the group I am in. I would be more concerned about certain types of bigotry if traveling with someone who has a different set of privilege than I do... <<
Yeah, it's good to keep an eye on other folks if you're adept at reading that.
>>I know what answers are right for me, and I agree that they are not the right answers for everyone. If people are respectful-polite-whatever about it, that's good enough for me.<<
That puts you ahead of most folks.
>>Also, I prefer polite discussion to arguments. Less stressful, and I might learn something! <<
Exactly. I try to keep this space conducive to that. It mostly works.