|
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. |
I was surprised too. I had always thought concealed carry was a genuine option for repelling assailants as they appear in real world scenarios such as rape and muggings. I was wrong though, evidently. I suppose the concealed carry option does provide one with the feeling of safety, at least.
|
On April 28 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I was surprised too. I had always thought concealed carry was a genuine option for repelling assailants as they appear in real world scenarios such as rape and muggings. I was wrong though, evidently. I suppose the concealed carry option does provide one with the feeling of safety, at least.
Its better than nothing. Say you're being mugged, you fake fumbling for your wallet when really you're getting your gun.
|
On April 29 2013 11:20 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I was surprised too. I had always thought concealed carry was a genuine option for repelling assailants as they appear in real world scenarios such as rape and muggings. I was wrong though, evidently. I suppose the concealed carry option does provide one with the feeling of safety, at least. Its better than nothing. Say you're being mugged, you fake fumbling for your wallet when really you're getting your gun.
Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.
“From any perspective of rationality, the thing to do with a robber is to cooperate politely,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist at Berkeley Law School. But, he added, both robbers and recalcitrant victims have never been the most rational actors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
|
On April 29 2013 11:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 11:20 Millitron wrote:On April 28 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I was surprised too. I had always thought concealed carry was a genuine option for repelling assailants as they appear in real world scenarios such as rape and muggings. I was wrong though, evidently. I suppose the concealed carry option does provide one with the feeling of safety, at least. Its better than nothing. Say you're being mugged, you fake fumbling for your wallet when really you're getting your gun. Show nested quote +
Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.
“From any perspective of rationality, the thing to do with a robber is to cooperate politely,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist at Berkeley Law School. But, he added, both robbers and recalcitrant victims have never been the most rational actors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
Why is it evident that you were wrong before about a concealed carry being a genuine option for repelling assailants? You may be more likely to be hurt or killed, but not every circumstance gives you an option to hand over your money politely and the robber goes away. Having a concealed carry gives you an option. That doesn't mean you have to shoot your robber, but some circumstances may require a dangerous response. Having no gun gives you less options, and he may end up klling you anyway because you are a witness.
I'm not at all saying that shooting someone is the best option, just that sometimes it might be your only one.
|
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios.
|
On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios.
I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical 
|
On April 29 2013 11:43 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 11:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 29 2013 11:20 Millitron wrote:On April 28 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I was surprised too. I had always thought concealed carry was a genuine option for repelling assailants as they appear in real world scenarios such as rape and muggings. I was wrong though, evidently. I suppose the concealed carry option does provide one with the feeling of safety, at least. Its better than nothing. Say you're being mugged, you fake fumbling for your wallet when really you're getting your gun.
Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.
“From any perspective of rationality, the thing to do with a robber is to cooperate politely,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist at Berkeley Law School. But, he added, both robbers and recalcitrant victims have never been the most rational actors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp Why is it evident that you were wrong before about a concealed carry being a genuine option for repelling assailants? You may be more likely to be hurt or killed, but not every circumstance gives you an option to hand over your money politely and the robber goes away. Having a concealed carry gives you an option. That doesn't mean you have to shoot your robber, but some circumstances may require a dangerous response. Having no gun gives you less options, and he may end up klling you anyway because you are a witness. I'm not at all saying that shooting someone is the best option, just that sometimes it might be your only one.
I feel like it's a weak argument though.
If the robber doesn't want witness and is willing to kill, then why not kill and then get the money?
It sounds like an option that people won't know it will lead to the death of one or another too
You threatening the other guy is just gonna provoke an aggressive ending
|
On April 26 2013 02:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 02:45 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 01:58 Jormundr wrote:On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning. Your paragraph expressions confusion over why political posturing happens. To put it simply, we have these things called elections, and most politicians who are up for re-election in the next cycle are willing to put on all sorts of dramatic shows that SOUND good to the least educated majority. Most of the gun laws passed since 84 meet three requirements: 1. They vaguely address a public outcry for gun control, but fall far short of any real change in legislation 2. They must not have a detrimental effect on gun sales 3. They generate media attention for both the politician and the NRA If you see most gun laws as trying to fit into this framework, they make more sense. Your last statement doesn't really follow any... reason... The reason why men should be able to beat and rape women is because men who beat and rape women are not being negatively affected by their ability to rape and beat women. Just because the group in question isn't negatively affected by their actions (which you have yet to prove or substantiate) doesn't mean that other groups aren't negatively affected. P.S. nobody has a right to own a firearm. You aren't handed a firearm at birth and asked whether you want it or not. You have the right to potentially own a firearm, which is why there is a gun control movement. Making an action less desirable does not take away or infringe upon that right. For instance having a one month wait period doesn't infringe upon your right. You still have just as much potential to own a firearm. It's just never going to happen because that's awful for gun sales, and the NRA (which stands for Gun Marketers of America) would push every bribe it has to make sure that doesn't happen because its in their own economic interest. REALLY? I was pretty sure you did have the right, considering its in the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges. On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well. We're not a democracy. If public opinion matters so much, why not get rid of the Senate entirely? They must just be needless middlemen right? Now you're just getting into semantics. Calling something a right doesn't make it a right. For it to be a right, it must first be an ability. If you're not able to live, then you don't have a right to life or to bear arms because you're dead. Similarly, if you don't have the ability to own a gun, you aren't given the right to bear one.
Have you studied political philosophy or science at all?
You are just completely and utterly wrong. The concept of a right is in place for the exact reason that some individuals can't practice them. Just because individuals in North Korea don't have any freedoms doesn't mean they don't have a right to it. That is exactly how human rights violations work. Unless you are operating under some extremely fringe and nonsensical ontology, rights aren't necessarily a tangible thing that you own; a right is something that you are entitled to.
Do you? I'm pretty sure that some people are considered unfit to stand trial. There's also this clever method of coercion called the plea bargain. Sure you have the right to stand trial, but how do you face the prisoner's dilemma? Do you have the right to free speech? I'm pretty sure that 'right' doesn't stand if someone in power deems that it constitutes public endangerment or disturbing the peace.
So, cute jab, but both of those 'rights' are conditional. Which has nothing to do with what I said, because I wasn't talking about rights in general, even though the point could be extended to other so called 'rights'. I was talking about the right to bear arms, which only ~1/3 people can exercise (most liberal estimate I could find). This is in contrast to the right to life which everyone can exercise.
It sounds like you are just throwing out philosophical/political jargon to sound knowledgeable without actually knowing what you're talking about.
There isn't and never has been a right that is absolutely universal in the sense that it can never be trumped by another societal or individual need. Even the right to life of an individual is forfeited if your life is necessary to save 50,000 other lives.
|
On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical
I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died.
The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)).
edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick  P.S pollen sucks.
|
On April 29 2013 12:21 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 11:43 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 29 2013 11:20 Millitron wrote:On April 28 2013 12:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I was surprised too. I had always thought concealed carry was a genuine option for repelling assailants as they appear in real world scenarios such as rape and muggings. I was wrong though, evidently. I suppose the concealed carry option does provide one with the feeling of safety, at least. Its better than nothing. Say you're being mugged, you fake fumbling for your wallet when really you're getting your gun.
Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.
“From any perspective of rationality, the thing to do with a robber is to cooperate politely,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist at Berkeley Law School. But, he added, both robbers and recalcitrant victims have never been the most rational actors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp Why is it evident that you were wrong before about a concealed carry being a genuine option for repelling assailants? You may be more likely to be hurt or killed, but not every circumstance gives you an option to hand over your money politely and the robber goes away. Having a concealed carry gives you an option. That doesn't mean you have to shoot your robber, but some circumstances may require a dangerous response. Having no gun gives you less options, and he may end up klling you anyway because you are a witness. I'm not at all saying that shooting someone is the best option, just that sometimes it might be your only one. I feel like it's a weak argument though. If the robber doesn't want witness and is willing to kill, then why not kill and then get the money? It sounds like an option that people won't know it will lead to the death of one or another too You threatening the other guy is just gonna provoke an aggressive ending
Or maybe he sees the gun and runs off? Depending on who's stats you believe, there's around 1 million defensive gun uses a year. There's less than 10,000 gun-related homicides a year, so clearly guns work pretty well for self-defense.
In fact, in most cases, you don't even have to fire a shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
|
On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks.
Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger.
|
On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger.
Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs.
|
On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs.
Even harder to determine is the effect of the knowledge of a strong likelihood that the potential victim(s) will be carrying guns. If you're a criminal who is looking to rob someone or a rapist looking to rape someone, would you go to the place where 90+% of the people walking around will be carrying concealed handguns, or will you go the place where 10% will be? It would be hard to determine using studies (the over reliance on "studies" is alarming in it's own right), but common sense dictates that an armed populace is less likely to be victimized than an unarmed one.
|
On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs.
Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss.
|
On April 30 2013 06:28 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs. Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss.
The moment someone shot someone because out of nervous reaction this argument is done.
|
On April 30 2013 06:29 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:28 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs. Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss. The moment someone shot someone because out of nervous reaction this argument is done.
Just because you aren't willing to have a discussion about other possible outcomes doesn't mean the argument is "done".
|
On April 30 2013 06:58 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:29 Nachtwind wrote:On April 30 2013 06:28 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs. Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss. The moment someone shot someone because out of nervous reaction this argument is done. Just because you aren't willing to have a discussion about other possible outcomes doesn't mean the argument is "done".
I would really like to discuse this but i´m lacking the spirit of someone who got raised in the US. Germany has the most hard/difficult gun laws in the world and i´m biased against guns. So i´m not a good speaker when it´s about american gun laws and i lack objectivity.
I´m only saying that this situation you´re describing is a case where you´re equalize the usage of fear. And the moment where you used lethal force as an accident, instead of fear, the whole concept of equalizing is done.
I´ve talked with some friends and guys i know from our local weapon shops and schützenvereinen and in the end the pro side always comes down to this in germany. We fear them so let us wear weapons so they fear us(the self defense side, not talking about sports/hunting). This thought process is common with countrys that are having a nuclear weaponary.
|
On April 30 2013 07:46 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 06:58 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:29 Nachtwind wrote:On April 30 2013 06:28 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs. Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss. The moment someone shot someone because out of nervous reaction this argument is done. Just because you aren't willing to have a discussion about other possible outcomes doesn't mean the argument is "done". I would really like to discuse this but i´m lacking the spirit of someone who got raised in the US. Germany has the most hard/difficult gun laws in the world and i´m biased against guns. So i´m not a good speaker when it´s about american gun laws and i lack objectivity. I´m only saying that this situation you´re describing is a case where you´re equalize the usage of fear. And the moment where you used lethal force as an accident, instead of fear, the whole concept of equalizing is done. I´ve talked with some friends and guys i know from our local weapon shops and schützenvereinen and in the end the pro side always comes down to this in germany. We fear them so let us wear weapons so they fear us(the self defense side, not talking about sports/hunting). This thought process is common with countrys that are having a nuclear weaponary.
Well basically my understanding of your position is that the possibility of someone shooting someone by mistake (nervous reaction) is enough justification to take away someones right to have a concealed weapon on them. It isn't a bad argument against guns by any means, but I feel that it falls short of justification when you weigh in all of the benefits of having a concealed carry.
|
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf
The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.
According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.8 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.”11 As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.
Pro-gun advocates—from individual gun owners to organizations like the National Rifle Association—frequently claim that guns are used up to 2.5 million times each year in self-defense in the United States.8 According to the 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health by Dr. David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:
"Much discussion about the protective benefits of guns has focused on the incidence of self-defense gun use. Proponents of such putative benefits often claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year. This estimate is not plausible and has been nominated as the “most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official.” "
In his book, Hemenway dissects the 2.5 million number from a variety of angles and, by extension, the NRA’s own non-lethal self- defense claims for firearms. He concludes, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate” and asks, “But what can account for it?” As he details in his book, the main culprit is the “telescoping and...false positive problem” that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, “a matter of misclassification that is well known to medical epidemiologists.”
|
On April 30 2013 08:32 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 07:46 Nachtwind wrote:On April 30 2013 06:58 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:29 Nachtwind wrote:On April 30 2013 06:28 kmillz wrote:On April 30 2013 06:21 Millitron wrote:On April 30 2013 05:51 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 18:36 Excludos wrote:On April 29 2013 12:07 kmillz wrote:On April 29 2013 11:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'd rather not get bogged down in any more hypothetical scenarios. I'll agree with you that I don't think it is a strong defense. I'd say it would be more useful in circumstances where you can save someone else than yourself. Sorry, last hypothetical I kinda agree with that. But simply carrying a gun can aggravate potential robbers to become violent whereas otherwise they might not have. And even if you managed to kill the assailant, you've still killed someone in a scenario whereas someone might not have died. The scenarios where a gun would help is where the criminal is set on killing you no matter what, or, like you said, where you encounter someone else being robbed from a distance. But I'd say the negative sides of carrying outweighs that heavily. (the above + rather big chance of accidently killing yourself or someone you know from neglecting safety (because there is no requirement of training before buying a weapon)). edit: So many typoes. Don't mock, I'm sick P.S pollen sucks. Well I was more referring to stopping someone who is being attacked (like somebody you care about most likely) than some stranger being robbed, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to shoot someone who is robbing a stranger. Using a gun defensively doesn't necessarily mean shooting them. Simply drawing the gun is often enough to scare off common thugs. Yeah, I've mentioned that before in this thread as well. People keep equating "concealed carry" to "shooting robbers and costing unnecessary deaths" and anything beyond that is just too much hypothetical for them to discuss. The moment someone shot someone because out of nervous reaction this argument is done. Just because you aren't willing to have a discussion about other possible outcomes doesn't mean the argument is "done". I would really like to discuse this but i´m lacking the spirit of someone who got raised in the US. Germany has the most hard/difficult gun laws in the world and i´m biased against guns. So i´m not a good speaker when it´s about american gun laws and i lack objectivity. I´m only saying that this situation you´re describing is a case where you´re equalize the usage of fear. And the moment where you used lethal force as an accident, instead of fear, the whole concept of equalizing is done. I´ve talked with some friends and guys i know from our local weapon shops and schützenvereinen and in the end the pro side always comes down to this in germany. We fear them so let us wear weapons so they fear us(the self defense side, not talking about sports/hunting). This thought process is common with countrys that are having a nuclear weaponary. Well basically my understanding of your position is that the possibility of someone shooting someone by mistake (nervous reaction) is enough justification to take away someones right to have a concealed weapon on them. It isn't a bad argument against guns by any means, but I feel that it falls short of justification when you weigh in all of the benefits of having a concealed carry.
That's the thing about hypotheticals. Everyone has their own take. Everyone has their own imagined scenario and counter scenario. Let's discuss documented facts instead of play theory crafting. More productive IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
