> My personal impression is that every single person stops acting rationally when enough pressure is applied, and this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations.

As you might imagine, I've had this discussion many, many times over the years. This is the most common opposed argument by far. I believe it reveals more about the person making it than anything else - which, to be clear, is not in any way intended to be an insult or a slight.

I've come to the conclusion that people handle stress in very different ways. For me, if I'm in under critical stress, I "go cold". It's not that I don't have emotions - they're there, and I'm aware of them, it's just that they feel like just another data point to me at the time. It's as if I defer processing them until the crisis has passed.

Maybe that's an extreme example of my own ADHD mind, or maybe it's a genetic thing that gives some evolutionary advantage. I honestly don't know.

What I do know is that I've been depressed in the past to the point that I earnestly just wanted to die. I had access to many firearms during that time and I never once had the urge to turn one on myself.

> this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations.

I accept that this is a real issue for some people. I don't have any data to even begin to have a feel for whether that's the vast majority of people or a tiny minority. Intuitively, it must not be "the vast majority" in the US, or there would be a lot more murders and suicides than there are.

> For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents.

For me and everyone I know personally, it's the opposite - having the real capability to escalate a disagreement to a lethal outcome causes people to be unwilling to allow those disagreements to get heated.

I'll be the first to say that this could be selection bias.

I can only speak really vouch for my own experience. While I could refer to studies that have been published on defensive gun use to support my position, it would be equally easy to point to studies that show the opposite. That conversation always devolves into comparing the minutiae of their respective methodologies, which isn't helpful in this context.

---

For what it's worth, I recognize that I feel very strongly about this topic. I believe that every adult should have the ability to defend themselves with the most effective weapons possible for that purpose. While I believe that is a strong net positive for society, my position is deontological; the "net benefit" isn't actually relevant to why I hold the right to be absolute.

I like to be challenged on my beliefs. I don't hold them unless I believe I understand the arguments of those who hold opposing views: "iron sharpens iron".

About half of the time these discussions end with both of us gaining a slightly better understanding of each other's views. I think that's great. Sometimes they end when the other party gets heated about it. I disengage in those cases, as it's not my intention to invoke anger.

I _have_ changed my beliefs in the past as I've gained understanding about things. I've managed to change a mind or two over the years as well (though that's sadly rare).

Now that I think about it... this sort of thing is the closest I'm willing to get to mutual combat :)

This thread has been great so far. Let me know if you want to talk about economics or religion sometime!