I always hear this argument, but it’s like people forget what the primary purpose of guns and cars is.

If the primary purpose of cars was to drive over people then they would be banned.

This is why you can own a car, but not a tank.

It's a little disappointing to see a whole thread of people who clearly haven't even seen a pro-gun perspective at all. The primary purpose of guns as they see it is self defense, as noble a purpose as any, especially compared to travelling really fast.

Why don't I ban you from browsing the internet, clearly the primary purpose of the internet is porn, which drives a lot of human trafficking and ruins lives every day.

I am a gun owner but the self-defense thing is a red herring IMO. You are far more likely to shoot yourself or be shot while owning a gun than you are successfully defending yourself. You can make the argument that they are fun to own and a constitutional right, but the self defense argument cant be taken seriously when the statistics show the exact opposite.

This "far more likely" is a form of pseudo-logic: you find a common trait (gun ownership, hair color, anything), discover a correlation and proudly declare that hair color has something to do with odds of being shot. If the US declared Somalia its 51st state today, our odds of getting shot by AK-47 would supposedly increase.

And the stats, if only you bothered to look it up without prejudice, would show that self defense cases are counted by millions, while murders are under 20 thousand (and hardly more than 5 if you subtract inter-gang disputes).

This is just straight-up incorrect information.

First off it's not "pseudo-logic" to state that gun owners are more likely to be killed or injured in gun-related deaths or injuries. How are you going to kill or injure yourself with a gun if you don't own one? 66% of gun deaths are suicides. There is a causal relationship between owning a gun and committing suicide with a gun.

As for the stats, the only source I can find on that "millions" comment is from a conservative think tank citing a single 1995 study. The actual number of reported cases in the article is 67,000-- of which, most are actually not true self-defense cases.

"4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective." -- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...

The 1995 study is such an insane outlier that it's safe to say that the methodology was likely flawed. If any news source is using that as a legitimate number it's not because they're actually interested in the truth. It's because they have an agenda to peddle to you.

Link to the think tank article: https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defen...

Finally, to claim that the number of homicides is "hardly more than 5" is hyperbolic and dishonest. Especially considering the fact that just the MOST RECENT mass shooting event has left 18 dead. If you think guns are cool just say that, don't be intellectually dishonest.

Some random stats from the Internet:

https://brandongaille.com/24-surprising-home-invasion-robber...

3.8m burglaries per year, 1/3 of those with someone present at home during the invasion.

5 thousand, not just 5.

Burglaries are not self-defense cases. According to that website about 12% of burglars are armed, and in states without "stand your ground laws" you're only going to be able to justify your self-defense case if they presented a clear threat, you attempted to flee first, and then you found yourself without an exit before firing. So of the 3.8m burglaries, one third of which have a person present, one eighth of those have an armed intruder. Which leaves 160,000 potential cases for self-defense. Which is certainly not the "millions" initially claimed.

Well, using your own words, 1/3 of the 3.8m burglaries happen with a homeowner present. It's a lot better to have a gun in such situations. Whether the intruder is armed is irrelevant: being sliced with a knife, beaten with a shovel or raped by a unarmed dude isn't a great outcome. As for those laws that protect the burglars from homeowners, they have to be changed. But even if you lived in such a state, first you defend yourself and your family with a gun, shooting the intruder if necessary, and then find a lawyer, in that order. Regardless of the laws, I find it appalling that some people embrace this submissive attitude to "burglar's rights in your house" and try to impose this attitude onto others.

You can legally own a tank though..

And here in Australia you can legally own a gun. Not sure about a tank. Though if I had a whole bunch of $$$ I'd find out... :-)

The primary purpose of guns AFAICT is amusement, some would say the same for cars.

People are talking about reducing cars’ access to pedestrians though. A lot.

Go to any organized large gathering since ramming into crowds became a popular terrorist move in the 2010’s and you’ll notice a preponderance of heavy barricades. Sand trucks blocking roads, cement barriers on sidewalks, marathon crowds physically separated from roads, etc. See also how every new-ish commercial building has bollards around the entrance or at least those large cement flower pots. Even if it isn’t a government building.

All to prevent ramming attacks. Because of how common they became.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

Code for bollards was updated with intentional ramming in mind

> On 23 October 2014, the US National Institute of Building Sciences updated its Building Design Guideline on Crash- and Attack-Resistant Models of bollards, a guideline written to help professionals design bollards to protect facilities from vehicle operators, "who plan or carry out acts of property destruction, incite terrorism, or cause the deaths of civilian, industrial or military populations".[26] The American Bar Association recommends bollards as effective protection against car ramming attacks.

Various cities installed permanent protection

> In January 2018, it was announced by the then mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, that the city planned to install 1,500 steel street barriers to prevent vehicle attacks. This came after two vehicle-ramming attacks in 2017 in the city killed a total of nine people.[28]

> The city of Münster has been planning to install security bollards in public areas in response to vehicle-ramming attacks in European cities, including the Berlin attack.[29] While only selected locations can be protected this way, tight bends and restricted-width streets may also prevent a large vehicle getting speed before reaching a barrier.[30

That was in Waukesha. Kenosha was where the Kyle Rittenhouse event(s) occurred.

Literally everyone was talking about it, making exactly the same point you are now. People parroting this take was basically all of social media for a week.

You’re not uncovering some logical inconsistency in liberal logic any more than “oh you’re pro-life, but you support the death penalty hmmmmmm” does for conservatives. This shit spreads like wildfire because it sounds like a gotcha but it relies on putting words in someone else’s mouth and then calling them a hypocrite for something they didn’t say.

If you can’t come up with a single good faith argument for why someone might want to restrict guns but not cars then you don’t really understand the opposing stance and you’re not equipped to actually have this debate. Being able to articulate the opposing stance in a way the other side would agree with then explaining why you believe it’s wrong is the only way to not talk past one another.

Well put.

People should be taught about Strawmanning and Steelmanning in elementary school, sad to see it needs teaching on HN

You are wrong!!! Liberals talk about reducing cars (esp. in cities): improving public transit, increasing biking, improving pedestrian safety, and walking all of the time.