[SpaceNugget]

> They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.

Is a quote from a sibiling comment to the one I replied to.

It seems that at the very least an extraordinarily loud minority of americans believe that arming the general population should somehow result in fewer gun deaths. On the big social media platforms, the larger news networks, and right here on HN, I am always surprised that such an obviously incorrect idea can be so pervasive.

> All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.

No, it doesn't. You can't just assert that because it's what you think. Societal issues do play a part, but just as you need oxygen and fuel for a fire, removing either one stops the flames. So if changing the individual minds and morals of seemingly half your country seems easier than enacting legislation restricting access to guns... well I don't think you should hold your breath.

[crote]

You're misquoting me. That was in the context of a hostile government, not guns in general for civilian-against-civilian "self-defense".

Also, the "at best" and mild" are quite important there. I believe that armed civilians might prevent someone like the National Guard from firing on groups of protestors when it gets hairy, out of fear of being shot in response. They aren't suicidal: you don't escalate when you are in a disadvantaged position!