quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Personally, I can't mine myself shooting somebody who was 100lb soaking wet. I mean, that person would have to be pretty expert at martial arts to defeat the natural advantage I would have in height and bulk. And there's no amount of training that can teach you to manhandle 250% of your mass with a reach longer than yours and a high center of gravity. But that's always been interesting to me, since I kept growing through my late teens and early 20s. I wasn't exceptionally large in high school, and I did get in a few fights. But since my early 20s, nobody has ever showed me physical aggression.
You can believe this if you want, but it isn't true. I was walking, alone, though a park. I didn't even talk to anyone, and had no interaction with the people who tried to kill me. All 3 of them were 18 or younger, and 2 of them were taller than me, but thinner.
I ran away, and when they caught me I fought. They left me for dead, and one of them died.
In today's day and age, size doesn't correlate with physical danger a lot of the time. Your size does protect you somewhat, but just because someone is smaller than you doesn't mean they can't get a lucky punch in, or shove you down, or catch you off guard. And that doesn't even count the fact they could be armed....tazers, pepper spray, knives and guns don't care what size you are, for sure.
I've seen 3 people die from a single punch or shove. All it takes is a curb to be in the wrong place, or a railing to give way.
I probably am more likely to be wary of a larger person....it's ingrained in who we are...but I don't think that someone is wrong reacting strongly just because their attacker is 100 lbs.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You weren't talking about 3 people before. As I said, I couldn't imagine myself being intimidated enough by a 100lb attacker to shoot him. 3 medium sized attackers in a park? Who knows. Of course a 100lb attacker *could* hurt me, but my very natural reaction to an attack by such a small assailant would be less fearful.
Incidentally I disagree on your last point. I think it *would* be slightly unreasonable for me to react with maximum force to such a situation as a 100lb assailant. I could easily kill such a person needlessly. Now, sure, if they got the upper hand or the fight went their way a little, I would step it up. But I've never gone 0-60 all at once, and don't see as thats a good policy in general.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I could imagine myself shooting someone if they were really laying into me and had me pinned to the ground, I mean, I wouldn't internally reassess killing them based on how light they seemed as they were jumping out of bushes and hammering my head into the ground and reaching for my gun and saying cartoon villainry things like YOU DIE TONIGHT.
This is to say that if things transpired exactly how Zimmerman describes in his story, yeah, I would have shot Martin too. It is not something I would consider unreasonable self defense at all. The thing is really that we have little in the way of any good reason to take Zimmerman's story on its face, and plenty of reason to disbelieve his testimony on the matter, especially given the abnormally large number of discrepancies present in his reenactment as well as the perjury fiasco, 'covert' money movement and flight risk plans, and a series of recorded calls, incidences, mismatch between description of injuries received and actual injuries, and criminal history on the part of Zimmerman which the prosecution can do two things with:
- Elaborately detail a profile of him as an overly confrontational individual with poor judgment in heated situations and a tendency to rash escalation
- Hammer the crap out of the defense for literal days over incongruities between the phone recording, recorded statements on-scene and booking, and his extremely inadvisable 'recreation'
But that's just Zimmerman; he's an idiot, whatever. To speak to the larger issue, yeah, in the defense's account I would easily exonerate in such a hypothetical assault and I don't think I would spend a lot of time mentally assessing his weight afore I done shot him.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, I was thinking of a slightly different cartoon scenario: 100lb thug approaches me Ina threatening manner, and I'm carrying a gun. In that case, I'm concerned with protecting myself, but also concerned, in part, with not hurting the person more badly than necessary. I don't have much propensity for panic, (for example, I once checked the seatbelts of my fellow passengers to make sure they were secure *while* the car was careening into an accident scene- and only later did a friend point out how preternaturally calm I had been) but I do understand that there are those who do panic in such circumstances. Perhaps they shouldn't follow teenagers in residential neighborhoods against police advise while carrying guns...
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One very wise person I know who is a concealed carry permit advocate and a trainer says his pattern advice on the matter is that if you've got a gun on you in a potential confrontation situation, your job is to be the agent of non-confrontation. You are going to be the one it falls on to try to de-escalate. You are going to apologize, back down, say you are not looking for trouble, offer to leave without incident, not aggress onto any territory, whether literal or figurative, because you know that if things escalate into a physical altercation you have a gun you do not know if you will then be at liberty not to use and you want to make sure you have owned the moment and not rushed or provoked into a situation that involves that kind of terminal altercation. It is both for one's personal safety as well as their moral and legal safety.
he is fond of SYG laws but not fond of what zimmerman's case and his actions will do in terms of the law's future.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard the " makes me responsible" argument plenty of times myself. I even believe it- but it doesn't change the stats on gun deaths. You're still a zillion times more likely to be killed by a gun accidentally, or unnecessarily kill someone else.
Just from a purely statistical perspective, why would I want something in my house that had a vastly higher likelihood of hurting me, than helping?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Just from a purely statistical perspective, why would I want something in my house that had a vastly higher likelihood of hurting me, than helping?
Because when/if you really do need a gun, almost nothing else will do.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I've heard the " makes me responsible" argument plenty of times myself. I even believe it- but it doesn't change the stats on gun deaths. You're still a zillion times more likely to be killed by a gun accidentally, or unnecessarily kill someone else.
Absolutely. I recognize guns in the context of a thing that "ideally we would not have them, but they are there and not going away, so let's figure out how best to deal with them" — the way to statistically manage the issue of guns is, if you have decided at your own liberty you WISH to be a gun owner, whatever your motivations, to look at where the statistics put you as an individual. Gun users who do this versus gun users who do that, etc. Gun users who take classes versus gun users who don't. Gun users who have a gun safe and trigger locks versus those who don't. It is always contextual. if you only look at it in terms of purely statistical overviews, sure, you would never own a gun. But at the same time, you would also never have a swimming pool, or live in a house with stairs.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
God forbid you find yourself on the stairs that lead to your pool with a hand gun, it's all over then.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I've heard the " makes me responsible" argument plenty of times myself. I even believe it- but it doesn't change the stats on gun deaths. You're still a zillion times more likely to be killed by a gun accidentally, or unnecessarily kill someone else.
Absolutely. I recognize guns in the context of a thing that "ideally we would not have them, but they are there and not going away, so let's figure out how best to deal with them" — the way to statistically manage the issue of guns is, if you have decided at your own liberty you WISH to be a gun owner, whatever your motivations, to look at where the statistics put you as an individual. Gun users who do this versus gun users who do that, etc. Gun users who take classes versus gun users who don't. Gun users who have a gun safe and trigger locks versus those who don't. It is always contextual. if you only look at it in terms of purely statistical overviews, sure, you would never own a gun. But at the same time, you would also never have a swimming pool, or live in a house with stairs.
Good points. It's difficult to be so nuanced in a pro/anti gun debate. I'm in favor of guns being legal when the owners are highly responsible with their guns. I even taught shooting at summer camp, though I've never owned a gun myself. But I know also that the practical reality of gun freedom is irresponsible ownership in a preponderance of cases, and I have a hard time reconciling that with my feeling that it should be a right. Because unlike, say, a pool, the gun has an express purpose, and it tends to get its job done *regardless* of whether it is used properly or not. Sort of a situation where we make tools that are just way too good at doing what they are designed for- sort of like how race cars have restrictors these days, because if you actually tried to make the *fastest* car you could, it would be literally impossible to actually race in it without getting yourself killed.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: But I know also that the practical reality of gun freedom is irresponsible ownership in a preponderance of cases...
How do you know that?
With as common place gun ownership is in this country, I would think that safe ownership/handling is by far the majority circumstance.
Of course, that's just my thinking, if you really do -know- that the vast majority of gun owners are unsafe, say, statistically, I would like to see those numbers.
It is exactly yahoos like Zimmerman who make those of us who lock our guns up and handle/use them safely and responsibly look bad.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"preponderance" refers to excess, or to "superiority in weight, importance, or strength," but is not a perfect synonym for majority, though majority, in some contexts, is a valid synonym. I'd have said majority, had I meant it. Instead, what I expressed was a vast number, or an unnacceptably large incidence. That is to say, that although irresponsible gun ownership comprises a minority of cases, the number of cases amount to a preponderance- an excessive number.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Just from a purely statistical perspective, why would I want something in my house that had a vastly higher likelihood of hurting me, than helping?
Because when/if you really do need a gun, almost nothing else will do.
I don't keep cream in my fridge, because the likelihood of me having a guest who wants cream is too small to justify the expense and waste. Simple math on my part. I'm willing to accept the inconvenience of not having cream on that day when someone asks me for it.
And while I'm sure if I'm ever attacked in my home, I will wish that I had a gun, the actual likelihood is that if I had a gun, and if that gun killed anyone, it would be me, or someone I would rather not have die.
quote:And while I'm sure if I'm ever attacked in my home, I will wish that I had a gun, the actual likelihood is that if I had a gun, and if that gun killed anyone, it would be me, or someone I would rather not have die.
This is basically it. While, yes, a gun will in incredibly rare (nevermind what our fear-driven society tells us) cases be just what's needed, in cases that occur more often than that, it is either uncalled for or exactly what ISN'T needed. Since it's a lethal tool, that frequently means serious injury or death.
Why, for example, do more men own guns than men? They are more likely to be the victims of violence in their homes, they are generally at greater risk of being overpowered in an attack outside the home, they usually spend more time with the kids meaning they have more to protect. And yet it's men, not women, who own more guns in this country.
Personally I think there's a pretty obvious few answers for that difference, but that's not important. What's important is that this, as well as how very rare violent crime is in our society-especially once drugs are taken off the table-indicates that most gun ownership *isn't* a measured response to the dangers life presents us as human beings. Which begs the question: why *do* people often own guns? It cannot just be for self-defense and feelings of safety. For quite a few of them, there's got to be something more-and the possible reasons are often problematic.
It gets worse when you start looking at ordinary citizens who feel the need to strap up in their daily out of home lives. I'm not talking about the people who have been victims of crime, or carry large sums of money, or have had threats made, so on and so forth. We teach ourselves that defensive driving is the best outlook for driving we've got-doing everything possible to minimize the risk others pose to us on the road, because we realize that by the time we're actually faced with a danger, it's too late to take extra steps.
With guns it's somehow different. People talk about the right to bear arms, but what about everybody else's right not to have to accidentally bump into someone carrying a gun on the street, or rear-end them in traffic, or work in the next cubicle or scratch their car or so on and so forth? We just get swept up with gun rights advocates. It's essentially extortion, because the only real response offered to us is, "Start carrying yourself!"
Now as for responsible gun ownership, I'm absolutely all for it, but I would have a *lot* more patience with those replies if the most powerful gun-related (not just gun rights) organization in the country didn't do its damnedest whenever the issue comes up to block, inhibit, cripple, or completely kill any effort to ensure responsible gun ownership beyond what we've already got. If ya'all would clean house a bit, you'd be met with less skepticism-and this isn't like other political issues, which will either take or leave alone a bit more money in a taxpayer's pocket.
I keep coming back in my mind to a city government-about as small local government as we can get-casting about for some way to decrease a horrendous homicide rate and seeing it bitterly opposed by supposed conservatives and fans of small government.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That is to say, that although irresponsible gun ownership comprises a minority of cases, the number of cases amount to a preponderance- an excessive number.
I can agree with that.
quote:I'm willing to accept the inconvenience of not having cream on that day when someone asks me for it.
Generally speaking, when one needs a gun it is not because someone has asked you for cream but instead when what is at stake is the life and well being of yourself and your family.
quote:the actual likelihood is that if I had a gun, and if that gun killed anyone, it would be me, or someone I would rather not have die.
(OLD) I'm okay with people -not- being armed, it is heavy responsibility which not everyone should shoulder...like you and Rakeesh who choose not to.
Because let's not be coy here, guns are effing dangerous without the training, discipline and commitment to handle them safely.
(NEW) I strongly prefer those like yourself and Rakeesh who acknowledge the inherent danger of firearms and choose to abstain from gun ownership over someone who ignores the heavy extra responsibility and is casual or unsafe with a gun, like GZ was. All gun owners should go beyond simple safety measures and that goes double for those who carry because without such considerations, guns are inherently dangerous.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What's important is...how very rare violent crime is in our society-especially once drugs are taken off the table-indicates that most gun ownership *isn't* a measured response to the dangers life presents us as human beings. Which begs the question: why *do* people often own guns?
For one thing, we are a country who's start was throwing off the yoke of foreign oppressors which was possible because we were armed. Our country has been a frontier where guns were a part of the tools that kept you alive for longer then it hasn't. So our culture and national identity is still an armed and independent one. For two, if history has taught us anything, it is to not rely on society's protection, that barbarism and holocaust bubble mere inches beneath the surface of civilization, looking for the right moment rear their ugly heads.
Sounds far fetched, but my family moved to Minnesota after the LA riots for a reason. My father pulled a gun on someone in our back yard...our back yard was surrounded by a ten-twelve foot high cinder block wall. My father had to shoot a clear path for the moving truck as two cars full of armed men tried to hijack him as he drove solo out of LA. He used half his clip to convince them to find another victim, aiming at the ground.
What would it seriously take for our society to unhinge? How about a month with no power? You might ask the residents of New Orleans a couple years back that same question.
quote: Because let's not be coy here, guns are effing dangerous without the training, discipline and commitment to handle them safely.
Don't condescend to me in this way. I told you, I've taught gun safety and shooting. You're not talking to someone who knows not of what he speaks. I don't not own a gun out of blind fear. I choose not to own a gun for the reasons I have outlined to you. Not because I don't judge myself a competent disciplined person.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm okay with people -not- being armed, it is heavy responsibility which not everyone should shoulder...like you and Rakeesh who choose not to.
Because let's not be coy here, guns are effing dangerous without the training, discipline and commitment to handle them safely.
It's not a matter of being unwilling (or unable, as you imply) to shoulder this responsibility, it's a matter of looking to the world and realizing that it isn't necessary. That preparing for the very rare worst-case scenario at the expense of a much less rare danger is a poor trade.
quote:For one thing, we are a country who's start was throwing off the yoke of foreign oppressors which was possible because we were armed. Our country has been a frontier where guns were a part of the tools that kept you alive for longer then it hasn't. So our culture and national identity is still an armed and independent one.
I don't disagree, because you've made my point: in 2012, these reasons are relevant historical justifications and explanations, but not arguments in favor of present day ownership. These are specifically not responses to current and predicted future danger.
quote:For two, if history has taught us anything, it is to not rely on society's protection, that barbarism and holocaust bubble mere inches beneath the surface of civilization, looking for the right moment rear their ugly heads.
That is one possible, fear driven lesson of history. The other is that lessening to tools of violence, and relying on proactive rather than reactive protections is the better bet-and that we are significantly safer and longer lived, with better standards of living even with all of our many problems than our forebears.
But even if that was a good argument, it's actually an argument against your point: if barbarism lurks so closely beneath the surface (which I don't dispute), the correct response is to ensure a populace with more firearms?
quote:Sounds far fetched, but my family moved to Minnesota after the LA riots for a reason. My father pulled a gun on someone in our back yard...our back yard was surrounded by a ten-twelve foot high cinder block wall. My father had to shoot a clear path for the moving truck as two cars full of armed men tried to hijack him as he drove solo out of LA. He used half his clip to convince them to find another victim, aiming at the ground.
I can't fault him for that-quite the contrary. And having that experience is a compelling argument for one to seek a gun. But-and here's the question-how many riots have there been in LA in the past century? And for every brave father who uses his gun responsibly to escape danger without killing, how many unnecessary deaths or injuries were there?
This is what I meant earlier when I said statistics wouldn't be useful. There will always be a plausible but wildly unlikely worst-case scenario which grips the mind fiercely enough to overcome any amount of bland, non-gripping statistics. Your father's story will necessarily be more real to you than, say, thirty deaths by gunshot by accident or by fit of rage two cities over in a month's time. It would likely be so for me, if I had that memory.
quote:What would it seriously take for our society to unhinge? How about a month with no power? You might ask the residents of New Orleans a couple years back that same question.
You're using excellent examples throughtout that argue consistently against your point. If we're going to be asking the people of New Orleans questions about civilization and barbarism, well, shouldn't we also ask, "How shall we best keep barbarity at bay? Through a well armed society, or layers of failsafes and redundancies between it and natural disaster?" I know which answer I'd pick, and I'm not reaching very far to say their answer would be the same.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You misread me...I said because you choose not to own guns...not because you are undisciplined or incompetent.
My point was that it takes the choice to pursue training to being safe, and for that, one must -want- to pursue it.
You may very well be able to handle a gun safely, but if Russians where falling from the sky you best believe I would not put one in your hands after you have said this:
quote:...the actual likelihood is that if I had a gun, and if that gun killed anyone, it would be me, or someone I would rather not have die.
quote:But even if that was a good argument, it's actually an argument against your point: if barbarism lurks so closely beneath the surface (which I don't dispute), the correct response is to ensure a populace with more firearms?
There are SO MANY guns out there, that unless you are talking about a magic wand or genie wishes, then yes, more guns in more honest, honorable, law abiding citizen's hands is exactly what I want.
Heck, if you are talking about magic, I'd be all for that. Killing with a bow or a sword or your bare hands takes a lot of practice and discipline, which means that user friendly death is not in the hands of every neerdowell who can scrounge up $200, as well as those weapons are not nearly as prone to deadly accidents.
Guns aren't going anywhere, and if this country is having a problem with accidental deaths that means this country should put some mandatory safety classes into place, mandatory secure storage, harsher punishment for those who leave guns unattended in the home, etc.
As to people who just "go off", well, since we can't wave that magic wand, it would be better if there was someone to stop them from picking a third, fourth, fifth and sixth victim, right?
quote:If we're going to be asking the people of New Orleans questions about civilization and barbarism, well, shouldn't we also ask, "How shall we best keep barbarity at bay? Through a well armed society, or layers of failsafes and redundancies between it and natural disaster?"
And why are those things mutually exclusive? The point I was making is that even in this safer, more advanced society where we don't have a daily need to strap our shootin' irons to our legs, there is still a valid and real reason to have a 12 gauge in a safe in the garage.
posted
Well, if you wait that long into a fight, you stand to lose your gun when you try to draw it. I'm not saying don't make a threat assessment, just draw.....of course not. But I am saying that I hear things like :You didn't have to do that, you outweigh him by 80 lbs!.....and that doesn't mean a thing.
If I say don't tough me, and you do, I have a right to defend myself....and I DO go 0-60 right away. I don't act aggressively, never start a physical situation, and try to walk away.....but if it does become physical, then I don't care if they get seriously hurt, because I've seen people die in fights with one push or shove.
I also don't own a handgun for that very reason. I have a temper, and have no problem laying into someone hard, but I never make it physical. Some people react like physical threats or aggression are OK....and if I had a gun, I would shoot them, plain and simple. NO ONE has the right to touch me, or hit me.
No one.
I'll used whatever is at hand...a gun, a knife, a lamp, a tazer, whatever....once it gets to that point. There is no such things as a "friendly fight".
I'll never get beat that way again. Not without doing anything I can to prevent it, even if I have to kill them.
My parents live part of the year in northern MI, and I think they are fools not to have at least a strong shotgun. They are 30 min away from the nearest police station, and there are all sorts of animals that wander though their lawn. Just this years they have had 4 black bears....a momma and 3 cubs one time, no less....a fox, and all sorts of snakes and critters.
Right now there are 3 kids less than 10 years old staying there, and both my parents are in their late 60's, and my mom in particular doesn't move fast. At least with a shotgun you could make noise, then protect yourself with the rest of the shots if necessary.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also....I prefer guns to other weapons. I shoot a bow well, si I wouldn't be helpless, but as far as swords and whatnot....it too YEARS to training, and only the very rich had the resources....both for the metal and the training...so abuses happened all of the time. Normal people just couldn't fight back.
Now they can.
God made man, but Samuel Colt made them all equal.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You misread me...I said because you choose not to own guns...not because you are undisciplined or incompetent.
My point was that it takes the choice to pursue training to being safe, and for that, one must -want- to pursue it.
You may very well be able to handle a gun safely, but if Russians where falling from the sky you best believe I would not put one in your hands after you have said this:
quote:...the actual likelihood is that if I had a gun, and if that gun killed anyone, it would be me, or someone I would rather not have die.
Aww shucks, I misread you... Except no I didn't, and you continue to condescend. I want you to be aware of this pattern, of passive aggressive "comments" about other people, and then "aww gee wiz" excuses about how people misread you. I was very, very clear that I was talking about statistical liklihoods, and you made that about me. Then you said, oh, no, I didn't mean to slight you... Then you reiterated the slight. This is your pattern.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll keep that in mind...as I honestly wasn't -trying- to take a shot at anyone. Regardless of my intent, both you and Rakeesh took this as a slight, so I guess it appear as one.
My point was that guns really are dangerous, and owning them should be a huge commitment. Just like Samp was sharing his friend's feelings, carrying (and for that matter owning and handling) a gun puts a heavy responsibility, the responsibility of life and death, on the wielder.
Unlike my feelings of pepper spray, where carrying it is good for most people, I do not feel the same for firearms. If someone, like you and Rakeesh wish to abstain, then you should! That's all. No judgements.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you actually don't understand why your comment was insulting and patronizing, then well, wow. But part of your passive aggressive thing is to "just say" things, and then roll back on " that wasn't a shot." Ok... If it wasn't, then it was just a Total failure to communicate or comprehend what is being said. Either way, not good.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Keep at it. A failure to communicate csn occurr on many different levels. In your case, the problem is not usually linguistic or lexical. It's usually something a little deeper then that. But go on and keep playing the game with me. That's ok.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not playing a game, you exaggerated and I called you on it.
I also clarified previous statements to avoid unintentional pique.
As I told Rakeesh earlier, I don't need to make veiled, subjective shots. If I have something to say to you, I'll say it, clear as day and plain as the nose on my face.
One thing that doesn't make any sense to me is you saying this: "...the actual likelihood is that if I had a gun, and if that gun killed anyone, it would be me, or someone I would rather not have die." AND "I've taught gun safety and shooting." You seem to be saying that you are incompetent with a gun. But since you have taught gun safety and shooting...does that mean you would shoot yourself or a loved one intentionally? Are you saying you are mentally unhinged?
And it wouldn't be you panicking, since you have a "preternatural sense of calmness in an emergency", so what else could the possibly mean?
I guess I don't get your point of saying that.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really you don't get this? All my harping on just plain statistics? The fact tht even were I a responsible, careful gun owner, the highest probability is that if my gun killed anyone,, it would not be someone who I wanted to die? This logic is too difficult for you? You think I'm saying someone *would* likely die? So I'm mentally unhinged? Im incompetent eith a gun, because i know that statistically, anyone is more likely to shoot himself in his own home, than any intruder? Really? You do have a reading problem. You need to follow that sentence more closely, and see what it's actually saying.
My point, in saying that, is that it is statistically accurate. If I own a gun, the person most likely to be killed with tht gun, if anyone is to be killed with it, is me, or a family member, or a friend. Criminal and Russian parachutist is way down the list.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Really you don't get this? All my harping on just plain statistics? The fact tht even were I a responsible, careful gun owner, the highest probability is that if my gun killed anyone,, it would not be someone who I wanted to die? This logic is too difficult for you? You think I'm saying someone *would* likely die? So I'm mentally unhinged? Im incompetent eith a gun, because i know that statistically, anyone is more likely to shoot himself in his own home, than any intruder? Really? You do have a reading problem. You need to follow that sentence more closely, and see what it's actually saying.
My point, in saying that, is that it is statistically accurate. If I own a gun, the person most likely to be killed with tht gun, if anyone is to be killed with it, is me, or a family member, or a friend. Criminal and Russian parachutist is way down the list.
I think one of the factors contributing to Stone Wolf's confusion is that you're taking broad gun statistics and then applying them incorrectly to a specific contextual situation.
He's focused on that context, and since the gun stats don't represent that context, when applied to it they seem very nonsensical. So he sees what you're saying as nonsensical, and is trying various (incorrect) approaches to make sense of it.
So, yeah, I get what you're driving at, but it's inaccurate, and kind of silly.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think one of the factors contributing to Stone Wolf's confusion is that you're taking broad gun statistics and then applying them incorrectly to a specific contextual situation.
This gets right to the heart of really arguing in favor of gun control: every opponent will almost invariably say that they, and the people they want to have guns, will be this platonic ideal of gun ownership, and no amount of statistics or reasoned argument will persuade most people to admit, "Hey, it's more likely I would be irresponsible or there would be an accident or theft involving my gun than that I would adhere to this ideal."
I flat out guarantee you that of the many thousands of gun deaths in this country each year, committed with a legally purchased firearm-either ultimately or somewhere in its past-you won't find a gun owner at the root who said, "I included the risk that some bystander or family member or friend would be killed." In fact, human nature being what it is, they will be convinced that they had accounted for it.
But *shrug* there are incredibly rare riots to prepare for, or months-long collapse of municipal city services, or muggings. I need to spend money every week putting cream in my refrigerator in case my Aunt Bonnie comes to visit, even though she's visited once in the past decade and nobody else uses it.
--------------
quote:There are SO MANY guns out there, that unless you are talking about a magic wand or genie wishes, then yes, more guns in more honest, honorable, law abiding citizen's hands is exactly what I want.
You do see where this leads, don't you? More guns for everyone, including criminals, because if there are more guns, they're easier for anyone to get, period. This isn't a solution, it's a delaying tactic applied as a long-term policy, with predictable results.
But even so, if what y'all gun fans want is policies that ensure only legal owners ever get guns, I wish so very much that you guys would see to it that your enormously powerful national lobby would actually work towards that goal, instead of stripping restrictions to ownership wherever possible and doing whatever they can to slow them down where they're not.
Politically speaking? Citizens in favor of gun rights want government oversight of responsible ownership less than they want to stop, as much as they can, anyone from taking a citizen's gun away, or making it harder for them to get one.
quote:Guns aren't going anywhere, and if this country is having a problem with accidental deaths that means this country should put some mandatory safety classes into place, mandatory secure storage, harsher punishment for those who leave guns unattended in the home, etc.
Hey, we aren't the ones that need convincing on this. If the gun rights lobby in this country proposed such measures, opponents would be first flabbergasted and then ecstatic.
quote:As to people who just "go off", well, since we can't wave that magic wand, it would be better if there was someone to stop them from picking a third, fourth, fifth and sixth victim, right?
Ahh, the appeal to heroism. Well, we've got people to stop that, and despite what the news tells you, they're actually quite good at it. Of course, stopping that person might be easier if he could've laid legal, easy hands on just a *few* fewer guns, but.
quote:And why are those things mutually exclusive? The point I was making is that even in this safer, more advanced society where we don't have a daily need to strap our shootin' irons to our legs, there is still a valid and real reason to have a 12 gauge in a safe in the garage.
Dude, your point was terrible. You suggested that one reason to have widespread gun ownership was in case of the collapse of civilization. That's ridiculous. There are about fifteen different things that could be done to address that fear before guns.
Coming up next: reasons why planning for the worst-case scenario remains more important than planning for scenarios that are actually likely to happen,
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be very clear: I taught gun safety and shooting. I am comfortable with and knowledgable about guns. I m confident that I would be an exemplary gun owner. And having examined the costs and benefits of having one, I choose not to. For my safety and that of others. If other people were as cautious and thoughtful as I am, there would be far fewer gun deaths.
It's easy math. There are even some solid examples: I live Ina country where guns are heavily permitted, but legal to own and even carry. But the culture does not approve of having them in the home, unless the owner is a veteran. Shockingly there are very few gun deaths here. In 2010, for example, there were 2 gun murders in the country- both of them crimes of passion. There havent been more thsn 20 in a given year for over a decade- and with rare exception, those murders were commited by Russian mobsters, and not Czechs. There are 200,000 licensed gun owners here, out of a population of 10 million.
So it's an interesting thing. I'm not against guns being legal- I feel entirely safe knowing they're legal here. But people don't find them necessary. People feel safe without them. How is it that the US can't be this way?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason why the gun deaths are probably way lower in general probably has less to do with a lack of cultural approval for having the guns in the hime, and probably more to do with socioeconomic considerations.
Not to say that it doesn't probably help to some degree not to have quite the same gun culture as the U.S., but ultimately the factors that are behind most gun deaths ultimately come down to things like economic disparity.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. I just find it remarkable that, a tv series here that is based on Law and Order: Kriminalka Andel, could actually depict *more* gun violence in one season than actually occurs in the entire country in that same period.
Edit: this is actually a source of unintentional comedy. The show ends up focusing sometimes on things like drunk driving, and police corruption and petty crime, because the idea of there being a violent homicide with a complex investigation every week is unrealistic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The conclusions you are drawing are erroneous. You are more likely to have an accidental shooting then defend your home from an intruder = guns are bad. Using the same logic: the birth ratio in 2011 was 984 females for every 1,000 males. Where you born in 2011? Then you are a boy. Right? Not at all. But if you were born in 2011 you are more likely to be a boy then a girl, just as you are more likely to have a gun used tragically then heroically.
Do we need better laws concerning gun safety in this country? Yes. I have complained about this very thing many times.
quote:But even so, if what y'all gun fans want is policies that ensure only legal owners ever get guns, I wish so very much that you guys would see to it that your enormously powerful national lobby would actually work towards that goal, instead of stripping restrictions to ownership wherever possible and doing whatever they can to slow them down where they're not.
I'm not a member of the NRA, and "gun fans" and "NRA policy makers" are as synonymous as "liberal" and "leader of the Democrats".
quote:You do see where this leads, don't you? More guns for everyone, including criminals, because if there are more guns, they're easier for anyone to get, period.
That is ridiculous! I'm calling for mandatory gun safes (less theft/accidents), more background/skill/physiological tests (less criminal/unsafe/unhinged people with guns).
Here is the pit your side always falls into: However are you going to get all the guns? By definition, only law abiding citizens are going to turn in their guns...so who will have the guns? Criminals. Criminals who will be fairly sure their victims are not armed. Or are you going to have the Gestapo go door to door and search each household in the whole country? Again, if it is magic you are talking about, I'm on board. No guns, period. But since magic is not real...what is your plan? I want to hear it.
quote:Politically speaking? Citizens in favor of gun rights want government oversight of responsible ownership less than they want to stop, as much as they can, anyone from taking a citizen's gun away, or making it harder for them to get one.
How is that even remotely relevant? Are you talking to some random citizen in favor of gun rights/NRA directors? No. You want to score points off of people who are not in this conversation? Seems pointless. Please try and keep your arguments pertinent to what people here have actually said.
quote:Ahh, the appeal to heroism. Well, we've got people to stop that, and despite what the news tells you, they're actually quite good at it.
People like the police...who have an instantaneous response time? Or maybe they can predict the future, like in Minority Report? Come on! The police show up after the crime is long done and draw a nice, neat chalk outline around you and then do their darnedest to figure out who done it.
quote: Of course, stopping that person might be easier if he could've laid legal, easy hands on just a *few* fewer guns, but.
Show me where anyone has suggested "legal, easy hands" as you put it. No one did. This strawman is transparent.
quote:Dude, your point was terrible. You suggested that one reason to have widespread gun ownership was in case of the collapse of civilization. That's ridiculous. There are about fifteen different things that could be done to address that fear before guns.
Let's see the list of fifteen things individuals can do to protect their family against the collapse of civilization that are more effective then owning a gun. I'd love to see it.
Also make sure to include temporary collapses, like a riot or natural disaster, not just permanent ones.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The conclusions you are drawing are erroneous. You are more likely to have an accidental shooting then defend your home from an intruder = guns are bad. Using the same logic: the birth ratio in 2011 was 984 females for every 1,000 males. Where you born in 2011? Then you are a boy. Right?
posted
The conclusion that a gun is unsafe to have in the house, and all guns should be removed from all houses being drawn from the statistic that an accidental shooting is more likely then defending your home is as valid a conclusion that if you were born in 2011 then you are male, drawn from the statistic that more males were born in 2011 then females. That is to say, they are both erroneous.
A much better (and actually valid) conclusion to draw from the data is that we desperately need to change the laws concerning safe storage and handling of firearms in this country.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the two conclusions are not actually logically comparable and one does not draw upon the latter hypothetical conclusion "using the same logic" as the argument of the former.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The conclusions you are drawing are erroneous. You are more likely to have an accidental shooting then defend your home from an intruder = guns are bad. Using the same logic: the birth ratio in 2011 was 984 females for every 1,000 males. Where you born in 2011? Then you are a boy. Right? Not at all. But if you were born in 2011 you are more likely to be a boy then a girl, just as you are more likely to have a gun used tragically then heroically.
Just to be very, very clear here: is your argument that a gun owner is only infinitesimally more likely to have their gun used illegally, accidentally, or improperly than they are to see it used heroically-and there's that word again, by the way. Because I'm almost sure you'll back off this statement, or explain why its plain meaning isn't what you meant, and I'd just as soon skip that step.
quote:I'm not a member of the NRA, and "gun fans" and "NRA policy makers" are as synonymous as "liberal" and "leader of the Democrats".
Wrong, because the gap is so much narrower in the former case than the latter. And in any event, the NRA is the most powerful advocate in this country if gun rights and minimizing gun control-the same cannot be said of the President and, I'm not even sure, liberal politics in general? Or something.
Another key difference: if those responsible gun ownership advocates desire effective laws such as you describe, you're perfectly aware who must be convinced-and it's not us. We aren't the ones doing our damnedest to stop such regulations when they're proposed.
So, bad comparison all around.
quote:Here is the pit your side always falls into: However are you going to get all the guns? By definition, only law abiding citizens are going to turn in their guns...so who will have the guns? Criminals. Criminals who will be fairly sure their victims are not armed. Or are you going to have the Gestapo go door to door and search each household in the whole country? Again, if it is magic you are talking about, I'm on board. No guns, period. But since magic is not real...what is your plan? I want to hear it.
I suppose it was inevitable in such a discussion that someone on your side of the fence would bring up the Gestapo or Nazis or Stalin or something. It never takes long. As to my plan, ridicule (with laughable specters of Nazis) all you like, but it takes time. Increase penalties for illegal and accidental use of firearms. Stiffer background checks. Better regulation of gun dealers (that's a big one). Something such as a tax for a gun permit, like tag registration, with major incentives for redundant gun safety measures such as safes and trigger locks. Broaden gun control so that if one type of gun is deemed too dangerous (to, yknow, police) it can't be circumvented by just reducing the clip size or something. Incentivize turning in old or unused guns to the police to be destroyed.
So on and so forth. It's not magic, as you repeatedly sneer. It's just a gradual, steady shift in public policy to disincentives gun ownership. As for only criminals having guns...well here we come back to it: even if you have a gun, it is more likely not to be used defending against a criminal, or used tragically in such a way, than otherwise! Or will you still claim this isn't true?
quote:How is that even remotely relevant? Are you talking to some random citizen in favor of gun rights/NRA directors? No. You want to score points off of people who are not in this conversation? Seems pointless. Please try and keep your arguments pertinent to what people here have actually said.
We're talking about gun control in the US. Just because the most powerful organization on your side of the fence takes stances contrary to what you say you wish done, doesn't mean it's not relevant-just inconvenient. Again, if you want the kinds of things you describe, you know who needs convincing. They certainly won't listen to me-I'm a liberal holding open the door for the Gestapo.
quote:People like the police...who have an instantaneous response time? Or maybe they can predict the future, like in Minority Report? Come on! The police show up after the crime is long done and draw a nice, neat chalk outline around you and then do their darnedest to figure out who done it.
*snort* Yeah, that's all cops do. I didn't think you'd rise above your Gestapo remark, but you did! Yes. The only thing cops do to prevent violent crime is to show up afterwards.
But, hey, for the times they don't-we need more gun ownership that is statistically more likely to hurt than help. Perfect remedy.
quote:Show me where anyone has suggested "legal, easy hands" as you put it. No one did. This strawman is transparent.
I was talking about the reality in this country. It's not a strawman.
quote:Let's see the list of fifteen things individuals can do to protect their family against the collapse of civilization that are more effective then owning a gun. I'd love to see it.
Also make sure to include temporary collapses, like a riot or natural disaster, not just permanent ones.
You're serious? This is an actual thing to plan for, something to actually be feared in one's daily life? Well, alright, just for laughs: stockpiling food, water, medicine, fuel, clothing-that's five. Living in a remote area, stocking up on cash, getting livestock, farming crops, learn some serious first aid. That's ten. Make sure your family has means of communication that will be reliable-radios. Eleven. Practice emergency drills regularly for all sorts of scenarios. Twelve. Keep a vigilant eye on weather and social patterns. We'll count that as just one-thirteen.
Of course, those methods-which took me about as long to think of as to type-are based in the foolish notion underlying so much of this, that the only thing anyone can really rely on for their safety with any kind if certainty is themselves. Two of the biggest, most simple methods of being prepared for the collapse of civilization are organization and planning within your own community, and your own local government, ensuring backup plans exist should infrastructure or services abruptly fail.
I have no doubt you'll reply with something like, "But how will you protect all of that without a gun?" Which is actually a fair point in this profoundly silly tangent-except those other steps are actually beneficial even without catastrophe (with the exception of the cash), much less aren't actively more likely to hurt than help.
---------
In the interests of pinning anyone down: what sort of statistics *would* be persuasive? Is there ANYTHING that you could be presented with that you wouldn't simply reply, "Yeah, but that wasn't responsible gun ownership," or as I suspect is there nothing?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:...is your argument that a gun owner is only infinitesimally more likely to have their gun used illegally, accidentally, or improperly than they are to see it used heroically(?)...
This statistic (which I've never seen a source for btw) doesn't mean what you say it means. A statistic about all shootings in the country vs all home defenses...is a simple ratio...one question is does this include where a gun was used to threaten a baddy into leaving without actually shooting them?...but if we had better training/storage/testing, the number of accidents would decrease. Thus the ratio would change. This stat doesn't mean that guns are never helpful, or needed, just that more accidents happen then defensive shootings (for what time frame) at a certain point in time.
This stat could mean that for every 100 accidents there are 99 defenses. The phrase "more likely" is pretty open.
My point with the birth gender ratio is that a simple case of "more likely" doesn't mean much when it comes to actual individuals.
Now, let's see the statistics for accidental shootings vs defenses when the gun owner locks their guns in a safe or has taken extensive safety training.
These stats are only useful for charting the overall trends of a system, and are not specifically relevant to individuals, just like birth gender ratios.
quote:Wrong, because the gap is so much narrower in the former case than the latter. And in any event, the NRA is the most powerful advocate in this country if gun rights and minimizing gun control-the same cannot be said of the President and, I'm not even sure, liberal politics in general? Or something.
You are entirely missing the point. You keep arguing against figments of your own imagination...which is just so pointless. Who the hell cares what "average gun guy" thinks...until such time as "average gun guy" pops his greasy head into our form and pipes up with an opinion, it is not relevant to our discussion.
quote:As to my plan...it takes time. Increase penalties for illegal and accidental use of firearms. Stiffer background checks. Better regulation of gun dealers (that's a big one)...major incentives for redundant gun safety measures such as safes and trigger locks.
All things I have already called for.
The other things in your list...I disagree with, but will save for another time.
quote: quote:People like the police...who have an instantaneous response time? Or maybe they can predict the future, like in Minority Report? Come on! The police show up after the crime is long done and draw a nice, neat chalk outline around you and then do their darnedest to figure out who done it.
*snort* Yeah, that's all cops do...Yes. The only thing cops do to prevent violent crime is to show up afterwards.
I never said it was the -only- thing they did, but in most cases, that's all they -can do-. If someone goes nuts with a hatchet and starts a killing spree, most likely, only an armed person is going to be able to stop them...whether a cop or a citizen. If you have tested and safe, responsible citizens who are armed on the scene, then there will be fewer victims then if you have to wait for the cops. They can't be everywhere all the time...it isn't a shot at the cops, it's just reality.
quote:You're serious? This is an actual thing to plan for, something to actually be feared in one's daily life?
If it were the -only- reason, it -might- be not enough, but certainly not laughable, but since it happened to my father...temporary collapse of society...and many upon many others throughout our brief country's history, and so very many more throughout the history of civilization, I find your take on it naive...and annoying.
Oh and here is another reason this country is and should stay armed...
quote:But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Our very first document as a country names it our individual duty to hold in check our government, and forceably overthrow it if it becomes evil.
quote:...what sort of statistics *would* be persuasive?
None that come to mind, as statistics are just numbers, they must be interrupted, and given context. They should be taken into consideration, and I have considered the one you seem to answer all questions with...and it clearly speaks to me that we need to make safety a bigger part of our gun culture.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and about the Gestapo...-if- you were calling for the government to invade every home in the country with armed men and forcibly remove all firearms (and you weren't it turns out) then it would be a fair comparison.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You cannot possibly have thought I was suggesting that. So keep that in mind when you're being critical about things nobody has said, yes? Or, hey, another double-standard.
I wonder: how many of the firearms used in improper or illegal ways do you think were actually built illegally?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I -was- asking the question...which you then decided was a huge affront...OMG he said Gestapo! How low will he dare to drag us? *drama drama dram*
No double standard, just your normal love of theatrics.
As to your question...no idea.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, let's see the statistics for accidental shootings vs defenses when the gun owner locks their guns in a safe or has taken extensive safety training.
Ok, so the answer is 'there are no statistics I would find persuasive.' I knew that, but it's helpful to have it spelled out. If there are more bad uses of guns than good (and there are, or at least according to the uses we can actually FIND), then that's not persuasive-we need to look at expanding the number of good uses. If we do, we need to see how many of the bad uses had good safeguards. Etc etc etc, and of course this insistence on more and more specifics won't stop-until suddenly we arrived at the answer you wanted.
quote:I never said it was the -only- thing they did, but in most cases, that's all they -can do-. If someone goes nuts with a hatchet and starts a killing spree, most likely, only an armed person is going to be able to stop them...whether a cop or a citizen. If you have tested and safe, responsible citizens who are armed on the scene, then there will be fewer victims then if you have to wait for the cops. They can't be everywhere all the time...it isn't a shot at the cops, it's just reality.
The truth is in this incredibly rare scenario (he would have a gun, of course, not a hatchet, and likely *several* guns, give me a break) a good pair of sneakers and good cellular service will probably be more likely than the single or group of well trained heroic citizens. Because the truth is, that random place the nut decides to shoot up *won't have* that.
quote:If it were the -only- reason, it -might- be not enough, but certainly not laughable, but since it happened to my father...temporary collapse of society...and many upon many others throughout our brief country's history, and so very many more throughout the history of civilization, I find your take on it naive...and annoying.
Ugh. Don't want to talk about the many other better, safer ways to protect against this, huh? Surprising. If you hadn't actually asked for a list and gotten one, though, I wouldn't be able to label that as transparent dishonesty.
As for annoying...yeah. Message received. You really, really don't like me. It's been clear for quite some time, you've stated it in very explicit terms, but you're not nearly as good at concealing that as you imagine.
Naïveté. Really. From the guy who Godwined the discussion. Heh.
quote:Our very first document as a country names it our individual duty to hold in check our government, and forceably overthrow it if it becomes evil.
I wonder what else we might find that should thus be permitted today in there? Hmmm
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Want to talk about gun stats? How about Switzerland where every adult male has a gun, and gun violence is nearly nonexistent? Statistics have to have contexts, and your personal baby of one doesn't mean what you want it to. So sorry. Firearms and our particular country is a nuanced discussion which should not be decided by one equation based on one year's totals. That you imply that that makes me unreasonable just shows how elementary your understanding of this topic is. This is not black and white. This is not kindergarten.
Incredibly rare ≠ not worth trying to prepare for. It's rare, so let's give up and never worry about it. People -should- be able to defend themselves even from the very rare, if they can do so in a safe and responsible fashion. You're saying, "It's not safe, so take it away." and I'm saying "Make it safe!"
Your list is nice...it has -nothing- to do with defending your family. Those are good ideas for survival...but have almost nothing to do with reality if there were armed bands of baddies roaming the streets looking for victims and supplies.
Yes Naivete. That's right. "Society will protect us!" Naive.
If you think that me saying that something you said is annoying is the same as me saying I really really don't like you, then you should take a class on reading comprehension. You love to drag out the fact that you goaded me into saying I don't like you...but no one cares! I don't like your tactics, your attitude, your hollier then thou approach, but as a person...I don't know you! And I don't really care to beyond the confines of this board.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
