It is, I pay for social security, must not fear for my life, you pay for private security, fearing for your life caged in a gated community. On paper you are more wealthy but in the real world you are poorer in every aspect of life that matters.
A decent EU quality of living feels unattainable in the larger US cities and is available in the EU for most of the population.
So maybe your basing your position on stereotypes rather than reality?
There are ways to lose your quality of life against which guns are useful.
There are many more ways against which guns are not useful.
More of the latter apply in the US than e.g. Germany (which has very strict gun laws). Does this mean gun laws in Germany are better? Personally I don't think so. But it does mean the preference for guns over thse other benefits has more to do with ideology than realistic risk assessment.
If you want to complain about derailment, arguably OP derailed the conversation already by bringing gun control into a quality of life discussion and I merely recontextualized that. Especially because they were arguing for a practical necessity of gun ownership rather than merely for gun ownership simply being something they see as a quality of life improvement (like having an 8K TV or the newest generation of gaming consoles).
Also, that topic was raised by 3seashells. willcipriano was replying to that point. Then you said:
> Arguably the fact that you think owning a gun makes a practical difference in your own safety although a gun can not defend you against health issues or financial hardship (e.g. losing your job, interest/rent hikes) is a point against you.
You're using against willcipriano that he was addressing a narrower context. But the narrower context was defined by 3seashells. So your criticism is unfair. (Or, perhaps, mis-aimed.)
For your sake let's hope this historically aberrant period of political stability holds forever.
You don't have any such means, even if you own an actual M1 Abrams tank and suitable ammunition: you aren't awake 24/7; you aren't hovering around your family 24/7; and if a criminal planning to attack you already has a gun pointed at you, your reactions aren't going to be fast enough to take them down before you yourself are shot.
The way to be safe is to be in a society which minimises the degree to which criminals have access to guns, and where criminals know that killing someone is going to result in other people hunting them.
> For your sake let's hope this historically aberrant period of political stability holds forever.
I'm also pessimistic about it lasting, but I will consider it a sad day when I need to defend myself against bandits rather than letting the state do it for me.
Think about it this way: bandits and cops are doing it professionally, most of us (I don't know if you're a vet) are just amateurs.
Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietcong.
> consider it a sad day when I need to defend myself against bandits
Personally I'd feel shame if other men died in my defence.
That's my line. Those two kicked the USA's backside despite the superior firepower that the USA brought. Took a while, and they lost a lot of their own in the process, but they won.
> Personally I'd feel shame if other men died in my defence.
Why do you think that's a necessary, or even likely, outcome?
First: well trained forces are much less likely to die in any given encounter than random people in the same encounter. This is also part of why I asked if you're a vet: without that training, you're not really defending you and yours even a tenth as much as you think you are. (And even with: there's a reason the unit size isn't single soldiers).
Second: if you have a society worthy of the name, you can coordinate against bandits, making it harder for them to threaten the lives of anyone including those doing the groundwork of taking down criminal gangs. By way of comparison, the UK is sufficiently safe that even cops are not routinely armed — because they don't need to be.
The issue is, I don't have a great deal of faith in society generally or the people who inhabit it.
We couldn't even manage sharing the plentiful toilet paper resources available during the pandemic. The idea that the, to be frank, mostly obese often self proclaimed mentally ill masses are going to put forward a meaningful defence seems optimistic.
Think of it this way; If you are right, I won't have needed any of this training or equipment. If I'm right, you'll wish you were as prepared as I am. The price of being wrong from my position is much lower than from yours.
And they vote :P
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of dumb in society, and short term thinking does lead to bad choices in democratic elections; but normal people fund police and elect lawmakers — if they're doing it themselves that's called "mob justice" and generally ends badly.
> The price of being wrong from my position is much lower than from yours
Pascal's Mugging.
I can make the same argument for everything that societies do, not just policing: healthcare, firefighting, military defence, food hygiene standards, workplace safety laws, vehicle maintenance requirements and emergency responders to make sure highways don't get blocked by breakdowns, …
Some of those can't be done by individuals because of the way they scale, the rest you can be an expert at one or possibly two, so you can only be safe if someone else can fill in your gaps.
So: if you're right, you're still in a hellscape despite your guns.
My position is to try and aim for a world where society doesn't collapse. Not because I think it can't, but because I think it would be really bad if it does: there's so much more that needs to get done than any individual can manage, that we'd only survive by making a new society afterwards and dividing labour in similar ways, with law enforcement being a job rather than everyone's responsibility.
Europe is better than the US in many aspects, but I wouldn't call safety necessarily one of them. Well, in Western Europe. Eastern Europe is probably one of the safest places in the world.