Thread by @Aella_Girl

In my twitter polls a surprisingly large amount of people vote for 'small concrete good' as opposed to 'large abstract good' - for example, more people voted to 'save the life of a child' than 'prevent gender roles from reverting to the 1950s'

Even though 1950's gender roles would probably end or fuck up countless more childrens' lives (no abortion, anti-divorce pressure prevents a wife from leaving an abusive husband, etc.)

This is exemplary of a really worrying tendency overall - people look at a problem and think "We should fix that," without thinking about the large-scale, long-term impacts of the solution, or considering why the problem arose in the first place

For example, prostitution sometimes leads to exploitation. Yes, that sucks - but outlawing prostitution *would be even worse* in the same way reverting to 1950s gender roles to save a dying child would be worse, or criminalizing drugs to prevent overdoses would be worse.

you agree with me so far but I've got my eye on that gun control horizon

Does gun ownership result in higher gun deaths? Probably.
Is it worth it? I think.... probably yes.
I don't trust the systems in power. Not a tiny bit. And our entire civilization is built under the echo of the threat of force.

The gun control debate is about safety - but I see it less about safety from gun crime and more about the safety of the people from the structures that rule over us. That question seems to have far more lives at stake.

And to the inevitable "the government's guns are bigger than ours so it doesn't matter"
If I want to kill your cancer, I kill you, and all my big guns make it easy. If I want to kill my cancer, I undergo lots of careful drugs and chemotherapy, and all my big guns mean nothing.

The war machine was designed against other countries. If the government turns the war machine against itself, it risks going down with it. And maybe it will take that risk - but an armed populace makes it less likely.