|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws.
|
On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws.
Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate.
If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill.
|
I don't know if this has already been posted but it is clear that more armed civilians don't stop mass shootings.
There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years.
|
On December 19 2012 01:59 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 00:08 Nizaris wrote:On December 18 2012 19:38 USvBleakill wrote:
One thing i always find "funny" (i know its not but...): After every school shooting or something like that everyone talks about "gun control". But here is the funny part: As far as i know there was a "Bushmaster AR 15"(please correct me if i´m wrong) used in Connecticut.
Thats not a gun. It´s a assault rifle designed from the beginning to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.
How can politicans, weapon lobbyists and random people even sleep at night saying things like "it´s for hunting or to protect my family". Hunting what? Dinosaur? and protect them from what? Zombie kim jong ill?
looks like even pro-gun senator are pushing to ban Assault rifles now. It's sad that it took so many deaths to reach what most ppl (outside of the us) consider common sense. Probly won't help much however consider you can buy weapons online without any background checks. False, don't make claims that are not true. You cannot get your gun online without a background check. It gets sent to an FFL licensed dealer who processes you before you are allowed to take possession of the firearm.
I don't. Ever heard of 2nd hand sales ? They do NOT require background checks.
If you want a gun to commit a crime, you should buy one over the internet. Federally licensed gun dealers need to conduct background checks on prospective buyers. But online, you can resell your guns in a burgeoning secondary market, on websites like ArmsList, without being a licensed dealer, and without background checks. While online vendors are supposed to ship their guns to a federally licensed dealer who’ll perform the background check, a 2011 New York City investigation found that’s not always the case in practice. (.pdf) The rules vary site to site, but many sites take the eBay or Craigslist approach of staying hands-off after visitors sign a term-of-service agreement. The 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, bought his guns online; so did the Aurora shooter.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/gun-control/4/
|
On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill.
Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?!
But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?!
|
On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?!
If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns.
To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal.
|
United States24780 Posts
On December 19 2012 06:16 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 01:59 heliusx wrote:On December 19 2012 00:08 Nizaris wrote:On December 18 2012 19:38 USvBleakill wrote:
One thing i always find "funny" (i know its not but...): After every school shooting or something like that everyone talks about "gun control". But here is the funny part: As far as i know there was a "Bushmaster AR 15"(please correct me if i´m wrong) used in Connecticut.
Thats not a gun. It´s a assault rifle designed from the beginning to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.
How can politicans, weapon lobbyists and random people even sleep at night saying things like "it´s for hunting or to protect my family". Hunting what? Dinosaur? and protect them from what? Zombie kim jong ill?
looks like even pro-gun senator are pushing to ban Assault rifles now. It's sad that it took so many deaths to reach what most ppl (outside of the us) consider common sense. Probly won't help much however consider you can buy weapons online without any background checks. False, don't make claims that are not true. You cannot get your gun online without a background check. It gets sent to an FFL licensed dealer who processes you before you are allowed to take possession of the firearm. I don't. Ever heard of 2nd hand sales ? They do NOT require background checks. Show nested quote +If you want a gun to commit a crime, you should buy one over the internet. Federally licensed gun dealers need to conduct background checks on prospective buyers. But online, you can resell your guns in a burgeoning secondary market, on websites like ArmsList, without being a licensed dealer, and without background checks. While online vendors are supposed to ship their guns to a federally licensed dealer who’ll perform the background check, a 2011 New York City investigation found that’s not always the case in practice. (.pdf) The rules vary site to site, but many sites take the eBay or Craigslist approach of staying hands-off after visitors sign a term-of-service agreement. The 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, bought his guns online; so did the Aurora shooter. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/gun-control/4/
Isn't that saying private transactions often disregard the requirement for background checks simply because they are not obeying the law? That doesn't mean you can purchase guns online without a background check any more than it means you can purchase guns in person without a background check. It just means you can buy guns illegally with relative ease.
There actually is an exception in certain cases where you can buy a gun privately without a background check without violating the law, but it's rare.
|
On December 19 2012 06:16 Hryul wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted but it is clear that more armed civilians don't stop mass shootings. Show nested quote +There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years.
You just posted data that supports the opposition, in my opinion. The more ubiquitous personal protection firearms, the more that statistic goes up. Look up data from specific states with a high concentration of gun owners and you'll find the number is significantly higher.
Here is what I want to see: a stat on the percentage of cases where someone actually had a protection firearm in a situation where they could try to protect themselves with it, but failed to or caused more ruckus by doing so. THAT is a statistic that would convince me. Because right now I believe that, despite protection firearms actually being present in so few cases, that of the times they were they had a pretty good chance of making a positive difference, which to me says they should be present as often as possible.
|
On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill.
No, according to the vast majority of gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is to assuage one's own fears. Makes you feel 'safe' by having the option to kill.
Furthermore your argument, while cute, is rather asinine.
The man is carrying a gun. Therefore he is pro-gun. Viewing him in the same way as your perceptions of anti gun sentiment makes no sense.
|
On December 19 2012 06:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. No, according to the vast majority of gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is to assuage one's own fears. Makes you feel 'safe' by having the option to kill. Furthermore your argument, while cute, is rather asinine. The man is carrying a gun. Therefore he is pro-gun. Viewing him in the same way as your perceptions of anti gun sentiment makes no sense.
Totally off topic but i love your name :D
|
On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?!
I live in Chicago and a lot of unarmed kids that age, and younger, get shot every year. Sometimes several in a week during the summer months. Gangs don't give a shit about following the moral codes of the public. Rational decision making in high stress situations isn't something they really care about and if a kid surprises them while they are on edge while committing a crime, bad things happen.
|
On December 19 2012 06:27 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:16 Nizaris wrote:On December 19 2012 01:59 heliusx wrote:On December 19 2012 00:08 Nizaris wrote:On December 18 2012 19:38 USvBleakill wrote:
One thing i always find "funny" (i know its not but...): After every school shooting or something like that everyone talks about "gun control". But here is the funny part: As far as i know there was a "Bushmaster AR 15"(please correct me if i´m wrong) used in Connecticut.
Thats not a gun. It´s a assault rifle designed from the beginning to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.
How can politicans, weapon lobbyists and random people even sleep at night saying things like "it´s for hunting or to protect my family". Hunting what? Dinosaur? and protect them from what? Zombie kim jong ill?
looks like even pro-gun senator are pushing to ban Assault rifles now. It's sad that it took so many deaths to reach what most ppl (outside of the us) consider common sense. Probly won't help much however consider you can buy weapons online without any background checks. False, don't make claims that are not true. You cannot get your gun online without a background check. It gets sent to an FFL licensed dealer who processes you before you are allowed to take possession of the firearm. I don't. Ever heard of 2nd hand sales ? They do NOT require background checks. If you want a gun to commit a crime, you should buy one over the internet. Federally licensed gun dealers need to conduct background checks on prospective buyers. But online, you can resell your guns in a burgeoning secondary market, on websites like ArmsList, without being a licensed dealer, and without background checks. While online vendors are supposed to ship their guns to a federally licensed dealer who’ll perform the background check, a 2011 New York City investigation found that’s not always the case in practice. (.pdf) The rules vary site to site, but many sites take the eBay or Craigslist approach of staying hands-off after visitors sign a term-of-service agreement. The 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, bought his guns online; so did the Aurora shooter. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/gun-control/4/ Isn't that saying private transactions often disregard the requirement for background checks simply because they are not obeying the law? That doesn't mean you can purchase guns online without a background check any more than it means you can purchase guns in person without a background check. It just means you can buy guns illegally with relative ease. There actually is an exception in certain cases where you can buy a gun privately without a background check without violating the law, but it's rare.
You are probably right, but i have a difficult time imagining the police letting it slide if it was really illegal. Especially after multiple shooters got theirs guns on such websites.
|
On December 19 2012 06:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. No, according to the vast majority of gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is to assuage one's own fears. Makes you feel 'safe' by having the option to kill. Characterize it however you like.
Furthermore your argument, while cute, is rather asinine.
The man is carrying a gun. Therefore he is pro-gun. Viewing him in the same way as your perceptions of anti gun sentiment makes no sense.
Oh no, see, I'm talking about one thing. Whether guns inherently display an intent to kill.
If Armed Intruder does not plan to kill or attempt to kill while armed, guns do not automatically imply an intent to use them to kill people, correct? This is a true/false question, not a trick question. It's straight logic.
If it's possible to own guns with the hope or intent to not kill people with them, that takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of the sentiment that "guns only exist to kill people, guns are evil, get rid of guns".
|
On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal.
I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated.
If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.
I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?!
And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it.
|
On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?!
Do you live in a society where you give the benefit of the doubt to armed criminals invading your home?
I'm torn on gun laws in this country. I have no love of guns, and have no desire to own one, however if I lived in a less savory neighborhood I might consider owning a handgun.
But I'm also of the opinion that banning guns outright would not really solve the issues people seem to think it would solve. We need to be focusing on the people pulling the trigger, and what we could have done to keep them from making that decision, than focusing on the implement they use to perform violent crimes. There is no doubt it is easier to kill with a gun than almost any other tool, but a violent criminal is a violent criminal.
I've always believed lethal force should be allowed in the case of home invasion. The story above is a good example of why that is a good idea. It could result in some unfortunate incidents like the one earlier this year where a father shot his son by accident, but that was the direct result of the son being a criminal anyways...
I don't understand why we should give the benefit of the doubt to an armed criminal in my home. If there is even a 1% chance I think he is going to harm me or my family, I'm taking him down. Whether that's with a frying pan, a baseball bat, or a pistol is up to my personal preferences and what happens to be conveniently accessible.
|
On December 19 2012 06:32 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:16 Hryul wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted but it is clear that more armed civilians don't stop mass shootings. There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years. You just posted data that supports the opposition, in my opinion. The more ubiquitous personal protection firearms, the more that statistic goes up. Look up data from specific states with a high concentration of gun owners and you'll find the number is significantly higher. Here is what I want to see: a stat on the percentage of cases where someone actually had a protection firearm in a situation where they could try to protect themselves with it, but failed to or caused more ruckus by doing so. THAT is a statistic that would convince me. Because right now I believe that, despite protection firearms actually being present in so few cases, that of the times they were they had a pretty good chance of making a positive difference, which to me says they should be present as often as possible.
Well according to the linked article at least 2 people tried to attack someone on rampage and failed. One being an weapons instructor.
+ Show Spoiler +More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)
Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened—while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him.
|
On December 19 2012 06:39 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:27 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 06:24 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 06:15 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 05:45 Hryul wrote:Implying the armed intruder would shoot 3 unarmed children. If this was the case the problems won't be gun laws. Well, according to the vast majority of anti-gun sentiments, the purpose of being armed is killing people, yes? If so, then that's exactly what the intruder would have done, which makes the response distinctly appropriate. If the intruder wouldn't have hurt anyone, it calls into question the sentiment that the only reason to have any kind of weapon is intent to kill. Guns just make killing a lot easier. I thought we were through this train of thought?! But I have to wonder why you answered in this particular way. Do you really live in a society were you expect intruders to shoot unarmed 14 y.o. kids (and younger)?! If you can have a weapon for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own guns. To answer your other question, I live in a society where you're not required to gamble the lives or well-being of your family on the benign intentions of a criminal. I thought you were more on the reasonable side of pro-gun but this is rather unsophisticated. If you can have a cruise missile for purposes other than wanton violence, then it should be ok for civilians to own cruise missiles.I really like big shiny explosions. Do you see how . . . poor that argument is?! And you don't answer my question, but nice try dodging it.
I think it's cute you attempt to characterize me as normally reasonable to placate, in hopes I'll agree with you. Especially when you use a ridiculous argument like that.
I've stated before, and I'll state again. Selectivity. Cruise Missiles, high explosives, machine guns, and certain absurd calibers of weapon are not sufficiently capable of selective targeting to be reasonable in the hands of civilians for self defense.
Once you're talking about massive collateral damage, you're well outside of the rational limits of self defense, and you're making a useless apples to oranges argument to try and sound witty. It mostly comes off as a juvenile tactic to avoid answering a simple question of logic.
|
United States24780 Posts
On December 19 2012 06:42 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:32 StarStrider wrote:On December 19 2012 06:16 Hryul wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted but it is clear that more armed civilians don't stop mass shootings. There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years. You just posted data that supports the opposition, in my opinion. The more ubiquitous personal protection firearms, the more that statistic goes up. Look up data from specific states with a high concentration of gun owners and you'll find the number is significantly higher. Here is what I want to see: a stat on the percentage of cases where someone actually had a protection firearm in a situation where they could try to protect themselves with it, but failed to or caused more ruckus by doing so. THAT is a statistic that would convince me. Because right now I believe that, despite protection firearms actually being present in so few cases, that of the times they were they had a pretty good chance of making a positive difference, which to me says they should be present as often as possible. Well according to the linked article at least 2 people tried to attack someone on rampage and failed. One being an weapons instructor. + Show Spoiler +More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)
Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened—while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him.
A pistol loses to a rifle in a one on one setting (usually). If someone with a pistol surprises a gunman with a rifle that can be a different story.
|
On December 19 2012 06:32 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:16 Hryul wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted but it is clear that more armed civilians don't stop mass shootings. There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years. You just posted data that supports the opposition, in my opinion. The more ubiquitous personal protection firearms, the more that statistic goes up. Look up data from specific states with a high concentration of gun owners and you'll find the number is significantly higher. Here is what I want to see: a stat on the percentage of cases where someone actually had a protection firearm in a situation where they could try to protect themselves with it, but failed to or caused more ruckus by doing so. THAT is a statistic that would convince me. Because right now I believe that, despite protection firearms actually being present in so few cases, that of the times they were they had a pretty good chance of making a positive difference, which to me says they should be present as often as possible.
How about the number of protection firearms used to commit murder? I don't really understand anyone who voices the position of "we need more guns in public". Guns are an expensive luxury item. To achieve your goal we would need gun welfare, especially in poor/high crime neighborhoods. We would have to support people carrying rifles and uzis around in public. To me that is undesirable. I don't want my country to look like Somalia.
|
United States24780 Posts
On December 19 2012 06:46 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:32 StarStrider wrote:On December 19 2012 06:16 Hryul wrote:I don't know if this has already been posted but it is clear that more armed civilians don't stop mass shootings. There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years. You just posted data that supports the opposition, in my opinion. The more ubiquitous personal protection firearms, the more that statistic goes up. Look up data from specific states with a high concentration of gun owners and you'll find the number is significantly higher. Here is what I want to see: a stat on the percentage of cases where someone actually had a protection firearm in a situation where they could try to protect themselves with it, but failed to or caused more ruckus by doing so. THAT is a statistic that would convince me. Because right now I believe that, despite protection firearms actually being present in so few cases, that of the times they were they had a pretty good chance of making a positive difference, which to me says they should be present as often as possible. How about the number of protection firearms used to commit murder? I don't really understand anyone who voices the position of "we need more guns in public". Guns are an expensive luxury item. To achieve your goal we would need gun welfare, especially in poor/high crime neighborhoods. We would have to support people carrying rifles and uzis around in public. To me that is undesirable. I don't want my country to look like Somalia.
I hope you were just being silly as people carrying uzis around would be quite ridiculous lol
People carrying around rifles seems rather ridiculous also. At least a pistol can be safely concealed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
