|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 23 2021 23:59 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 23:41 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:23 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 22:34 Sadist wrote:On April 23 2021 22:26 brian wrote:On April 23 2021 22:23 Sadist wrote:
Those suggesting Police not carry firearms and comparing it to a european country are seriously underestimating how many guns are in circulation in the US. Id be all for them not carrying if you could remove guns from the US population but that will never happen
i do think this is the one excellent point that could be brought up in defense of police, and my answer is get rid of the guns. it’s happened before in other countries, it being impossible is just more american exceptionalism. Its not american exceptionalism. Theres a host of things making this difficult that youd have to overcome. 1. Politicization of 2A 2. 2A 3. Gun industry/economic impact (gun dealers, gun ranges, shows, manufacturers, etc 4. Hunting industry 5. Crime & bad areas (People want to be able to protect themselves) 6. Huge population/landmass with Individual states Thats just to name a few. If we had a dictator for a day we could ban them and tbh an Enlightened Despot is probably the best form of government until it isnt. But our form of representative democracy is not going to allow guns to be banned in the US. 1 is for sure. 2. The actual one says, in a well regulated militia, which would be the reserves now a days. If reservists had weapons and were able to be called upon when needed. It would actually make some sense, which is likely why it was worded as such even back then. Remember the first uses of this were to quell revolutions against Washington not the opposite, the opposite is your point 1. 3. This is a very minor concern (speaking overall and not of the individuals) % wise it is small, and that money and jobs would just flow into others. Not to mention all the heathcare savings, police, legal, prison savings for the government which would be reinvested else where in places without so much harm. 4. Would likely not be effected. Most hunting rifles are terrible for crime and rarely used in it. There would be lots of regulation but hunting would still happen. Also, most of the people I know that are under 40 are moving to bow hunting, and way prefer it. 5. This is the bad logic argument. Guns for protection are awful, there is a way greater chance of shooting ones self or family member, being shot by your own gun, then there is of fending off some attackers. Also, guns are what have helped to make that area so bad. 6. Others have huge land masses (like us!), it creates challenges no doubt. The whole state vs federal thing would certainly be a political issue but overcome able. Even look at Pot now, some states go firsts, others see the benefits and follow. Eventually the Feds will join when there is not enough to complain. Or in other cases the feds step in, there is lots of complaints, some states fight it but the change happens. (not without challenges of course). There is other democracies who have done it, it merely takes the populous and political will. It likely would have already happened if the US didn't have such bad campaign finance laws as the populous in high numbers would like way more regulation. It is going to be like a spectrum like most things, I would agree it is not going to move from now to a outright ban of all guns. But it can certainly start trending in that direction. I can assure you that guns for protection is an actual thing in the US, and it’s not awful. I know two woman that carry and feel immensely more comfortable in their lives because of it. Also, to bring down the amount of guns in circulation by a large margin will take decades of culture change and buyback proposals. It’s not easy. Other countries have done it, but America is not just another country. Small feel good regulations and laws aren’t cutting it, and they just further divide. I would state that the problem is that they do not feel safe without the gun.This is not specific to the US though
This is a point worth emphasizing, it's the lynchpin of the politics of fear that gun obsession turns on, one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny when actual rates of violent crime are taken into account.
|
On April 23 2021 23:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 23:41 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:23 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 22:34 Sadist wrote:On April 23 2021 22:26 brian wrote:On April 23 2021 22:23 Sadist wrote:
Those suggesting Police not carry firearms and comparing it to a european country are seriously underestimating how many guns are in circulation in the US. Id be all for them not carrying if you could remove guns from the US population but that will never happen
i do think this is the one excellent point that could be brought up in defense of police, and my answer is get rid of the guns. it’s happened before in other countries, it being impossible is just more american exceptionalism. Its not american exceptionalism. Theres a host of things making this difficult that youd have to overcome. 1. Politicization of 2A 2. 2A 3. Gun industry/economic impact (gun dealers, gun ranges, shows, manufacturers, etc 4. Hunting industry 5. Crime & bad areas (People want to be able to protect themselves) 6. Huge population/landmass with Individual states Thats just to name a few. If we had a dictator for a day we could ban them and tbh an Enlightened Despot is probably the best form of government until it isnt. But our form of representative democracy is not going to allow guns to be banned in the US. 1 is for sure. 2. The actual one says, in a well regulated militia, which would be the reserves now a days. If reservists had weapons and were able to be called upon when needed. It would actually make some sense, which is likely why it was worded as such even back then. Remember the first uses of this were to quell revolutions against Washington not the opposite, the opposite is your point 1. 3. This is a very minor concern (speaking overall and not of the individuals) % wise it is small, and that money and jobs would just flow into others. Not to mention all the heathcare savings, police, legal, prison savings for the government which would be reinvested else where in places without so much harm. 4. Would likely not be effected. Most hunting rifles are terrible for crime and rarely used in it. There would be lots of regulation but hunting would still happen. Also, most of the people I know that are under 40 are moving to bow hunting, and way prefer it. 5. This is the bad logic argument. Guns for protection are awful, there is a way greater chance of shooting ones self or family member, being shot by your own gun, then there is of fending off some attackers. Also, guns are what have helped to make that area so bad. 6. Others have huge land masses (like us!), it creates challenges no doubt. The whole state vs federal thing would certainly be a political issue but overcome able. Even look at Pot now, some states go firsts, others see the benefits and follow. Eventually the Feds will join when there is not enough to complain. Or in other cases the feds step in, there is lots of complaints, some states fight it but the change happens. (not without challenges of course). There is other democracies who have done it, it merely takes the populous and political will. It likely would have already happened if the US didn't have such bad campaign finance laws as the populous in high numbers would like way more regulation. It is going to be like a spectrum like most things, I would agree it is not going to move from now to a outright ban of all guns. But it can certainly start trending in that direction. I can assure you that guns for protection is an actual thing in the US, and it’s not awful. I know two woman that carry and feel immensely more comfortable in their lives because of it. Also, to bring down the amount of guns in circulation by a large margin will take decades of culture change and buyback proposals. It’s not easy. Other countries have done it, but America is not just another country. Small feel good regulations and laws aren’t cutting it, and they just further divide. If you bar is perceived safety than guns offer that. If you goal is actual safety guns do not offer that, and it has been proven over and over and over. The problem is simple but I would never say easy. You are right that there are additional challenges with the size and population, but that is not only a negative, they also have a shit ton more money every other country (I'm talking per capita) and you would not have the same logistics problem that we have being so sparse I mean really this is why people always bring up American exceptionalism because anytime change is suggested when logical reasons are exhausted those who still do not want the change decide "it won't work here". It would work there, just like it has in all the very different countries with very different problems else where in the world.
I’m afraid “proven over and over and over”, is absolutely not true. There is no good metric or hard data on how many incidents are dissolved or worsened by having a gun. I’m assuming you are taking in suicides and accidental discharges by children, which are horrible, but irrelevant in the case of single woman living in not so great places.
|
On April 23 2021 16:41 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 08:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 07:34 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 07:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 02:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 00:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 00:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 22 2021 23:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
Except that this is exactly what happened with the incident in question.
The cop didn't shoot because of a "feeling". He shot because someone was actively attempting to stab and kill someone else. I don't mean to be obtuse but nobody did any stabbing, the suspect was executed before any stabbing occurred hence they were executed on the suspicion (you'd probably argue justified suspicion) that she was about to get stabby. I argue that it is immoral to give police the power of execution on situations like this. This argument necessarily concludes with the idea that police should be required to let a victim be harmed (possibly killed) before they act with deadly force to stop a perpetrator, which you said you did not agree with about a page ago. There was no wiggle room in that video. If the cop waits for any more time to let the incident develop then it is extremely likely that the attacker would've stabbed the victim. She was in the motion to stab her when she was shot. This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator. Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified. At no point did I even imply the bolded part. You are either putting words in my mouth to strengthen your argument or confusing me with someone else. As to the italicized part, it's not meting out punishment; it's stopping a deadly crime from occurring and attempting to save a life. As I stated before, your position requires you to admit that you value the life of the attacker more than the victim in the posited scenario, so you need to justify that. I should have quoted the post I was responding to, my apologies. You are framing this as a binary choice when it is anything but. There are multiple endings to this particular scenario: 1 the cop shoots, misses and kills the wrong girl. 2. The cop shoots and kills the right girl. 3. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl with the knife stops mid-attack because she didn't really mean to attack the other girl or got cold feet or whatever. 4. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl stabs the other girl non-lethally, realises what she just did and drops the knife. 5. The cop doesn't shoot, the girl stabs and the other girl dies from her wounds. I have no idea what is the probability of any of these happening, but it is nonzero for all of them. In your opinion, what % threshold would 1+3+4 be in order for you to find unacceptable that the cop fired on the girl? If the probability of (1) is sufficiently high, then the cop shouldn't be shooting because he shouldn't be the cop. We all agree that both hiring and training standards should be higher so that this isn't an issue. I don't think (3) and (4) are relevant at all. If you have a deadly weapon and demonstrate both intent and physical action to kill someone (as I've said, this is currently occurring intent/action, not suspected) I don't think that the possibility of failing to kill someone should factor into the ability for either a cop or a victim to use deadly force to protect themselves/others. This would require either 1) mind-reading abilities or 2) precognition. If an individual loads a handgun, flips the safety off, points it in the direction of an innocent person, and then moves to pull the trigger, the perpetrator's skill (or lack thereof) in aiming and successfully killing the victim shouldn't factor into the moral justification of the state in defending said victim; the perpetrator forfeits their immediate right to life during the process of attempting to take away another person's life without legal justification. Your argument is so extreme that it essentially says that we shouldn't use deadly force to stop a mass shooter or terrorist who is actively trying to mow down people in public because law enforcement shouldn't be using deadly force. It even questions the state's ability to have an armed military to defend against an enemy army because hey, the state shouldn't be using deadly force. Hell, your argument undermines what is literally the entire philosophical basis for most societies for hundreds of years, namely that the state's first duty is to protect the life of its individuals against enemies and criminals. You vaguely reference some "extreme examples" where you vaguely imply that you might be OK with a police officer using deadly force, but somehow a person actively attempting to attack someone with a deadly weapon doesn't count. What crosses your threshold into an "extreme example"? Having a handgun instead of a firearm? That person could definitely miss. What about a fully automatic weapon in a crowded mall? That weapon could jam or the person could be so unfamiliar with it that they can't control it or aim it well, resulting in no serious injuries. You don't know what the particulars of that individual, so there are nearly infinite possibilities. Thanks for taking the time to type this, let's go point by point: 1. This is a situational issue. You could be the best marksman in the world, but if the would-be victim is in front of you and the would-be perpetrator is behind them, you have a higher chance of hitting the wrong girl. There will be instances where shooting at the attacker has a higher chance of getting someone else killed and this should be taken into account when making the decision of using deadly force. To your second point, it feels arbitrary to me that you wouldn't take into account the likelihood of the attacker to successfully carry out their attack when weighing the pros and cons of shooting someone. If someone is clearly acting erratically on drugs, brandishes a knife and waves it around while barely able to stand is a very different situation from someone in a military uniform getting into what looks like a training stance with an army knife in their hands. If you have a teenager in front of you waving around a kitchen knife you wouldn't be penalised for making the assumption that the girl hasn't been trained in close combat and is therefore unlikely to score a lethal hitnon the first try. I do not think that people forfeit their rights to live when they commit a crime, this is the whole crux of the argument. Like you have been saying to me, you are going to need to justify that. Would anyone in the world class a terrorist attack or a mass shooting event as anything other than an extreme situation? I wasn't specific, sure, but those two events are extreme by anyone's definition of an extreme event. The argument about undermining the philosophical basis for civilization is a weird one. We are not talking about removing the right to military personnel of killing their enemies, and we are not talking about removing police officers the right to protect citizens, just to do it without deadly force until a crime has actually been committed.
This is a good discussion that I think boils down to this:
1) I think it is abundantly clear that the girl is in the act of committing the crime of trying to attack the girl in pink with a knife (and therefore likely kill her because a knife is a sufficiently deadly weapon).
2) I believe that people have a right to self-defense, including using deadly force if their life is imminently threatened and they have no feasible alternatives. Because not all citizens are capable of defending themselves, I believe that the state then has the right to use deadly force in limited circumstances to defend people. Therefore, I believe that someone who is actively attempting to kill someone else with a deadly weapon temporarily forfeits their right to life (only while in the process of committing the act) insofar as it becomes morally justifiable to use deadly self-defense against them.
This really is just a long-winded way to justify using deadly force in these extreme examples we reference. I just think that this is a fairly clear example of not "suspecting" something happening, but actually watching it happen and then reacting.
|
On April 24 2021 00:14 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 23:47 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:41 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:23 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 22:34 Sadist wrote:On April 23 2021 22:26 brian wrote:On April 23 2021 22:23 Sadist wrote:
Those suggesting Police not carry firearms and comparing it to a european country are seriously underestimating how many guns are in circulation in the US. Id be all for them not carrying if you could remove guns from the US population but that will never happen
i do think this is the one excellent point that could be brought up in defense of police, and my answer is get rid of the guns. it’s happened before in other countries, it being impossible is just more american exceptionalism. Its not american exceptionalism. Theres a host of things making this difficult that youd have to overcome. 1. Politicization of 2A 2. 2A 3. Gun industry/economic impact (gun dealers, gun ranges, shows, manufacturers, etc 4. Hunting industry 5. Crime & bad areas (People want to be able to protect themselves) 6. Huge population/landmass with Individual states Thats just to name a few. If we had a dictator for a day we could ban them and tbh an Enlightened Despot is probably the best form of government until it isnt. But our form of representative democracy is not going to allow guns to be banned in the US. 1 is for sure. 2. The actual one says, in a well regulated militia, which would be the reserves now a days. If reservists had weapons and were able to be called upon when needed. It would actually make some sense, which is likely why it was worded as such even back then. Remember the first uses of this were to quell revolutions against Washington not the opposite, the opposite is your point 1. 3. This is a very minor concern (speaking overall and not of the individuals) % wise it is small, and that money and jobs would just flow into others. Not to mention all the heathcare savings, police, legal, prison savings for the government which would be reinvested else where in places without so much harm. 4. Would likely not be effected. Most hunting rifles are terrible for crime and rarely used in it. There would be lots of regulation but hunting would still happen. Also, most of the people I know that are under 40 are moving to bow hunting, and way prefer it. 5. This is the bad logic argument. Guns for protection are awful, there is a way greater chance of shooting ones self or family member, being shot by your own gun, then there is of fending off some attackers. Also, guns are what have helped to make that area so bad. 6. Others have huge land masses (like us!), it creates challenges no doubt. The whole state vs federal thing would certainly be a political issue but overcome able. Even look at Pot now, some states go firsts, others see the benefits and follow. Eventually the Feds will join when there is not enough to complain. Or in other cases the feds step in, there is lots of complaints, some states fight it but the change happens. (not without challenges of course). There is other democracies who have done it, it merely takes the populous and political will. It likely would have already happened if the US didn't have such bad campaign finance laws as the populous in high numbers would like way more regulation. It is going to be like a spectrum like most things, I would agree it is not going to move from now to a outright ban of all guns. But it can certainly start trending in that direction. I can assure you that guns for protection is an actual thing in the US, and it’s not awful. I know two woman that carry and feel immensely more comfortable in their lives because of it. Also, to bring down the amount of guns in circulation by a large margin will take decades of culture change and buyback proposals. It’s not easy. Other countries have done it, but America is not just another country. Small feel good regulations and laws aren’t cutting it, and they just further divide. If you bar is perceived safety than guns offer that. If you goal is actual safety guns do not offer that, and it has been proven over and over and over. The problem is simple but I would never say easy. You are right that there are additional challenges with the size and population, but that is not only a negative, they also have a shit ton more money every other country (I'm talking per capita) and you would not have the same logistics problem that we have being so sparse I mean really this is why people always bring up American exceptionalism because anytime change is suggested when logical reasons are exhausted those who still do not want the change decide "it won't work here". It would work there, just like it has in all the very different countries with very different problems else where in the world. I’m afraid “proven over and over and over”, is absolutely not true. There is no good metric or hard data on how many incidents are dissolved or worsened by having a gun. I’m assuming you are taking in suicides and accidental discharges by children, which are horrible, but irrelevant in the case of single woman living in not so great places.
More guns = more gun violence.
Be it by accident or by increased likelihood of escalating an otherwise nonviolent encounter, suicides.
Pretty proven time and again.
E.g. Rand study
Summary: Evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase total homicide rates is moderate, and evidence that such laws may increase firearm homicide rates is supportive. Evidence for the effect of stand-your ground laws on other types of violent crime is inconclusive.
For my lack of knowledge of US thinktank I went to mediabiasfactcheck to see what it says about RAND:
LEAST BIASED
Scientific American article.
The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Can you provide evidence of the contrary?
|
On April 24 2021 00:24 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 00:14 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:47 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:41 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:23 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 22:34 Sadist wrote:On April 23 2021 22:26 brian wrote:On April 23 2021 22:23 Sadist wrote:
Those suggesting Police not carry firearms and comparing it to a european country are seriously underestimating how many guns are in circulation in the US. Id be all for them not carrying if you could remove guns from the US population but that will never happen
i do think this is the one excellent point that could be brought up in defense of police, and my answer is get rid of the guns. it’s happened before in other countries, it being impossible is just more american exceptionalism. Its not american exceptionalism. Theres a host of things making this difficult that youd have to overcome. 1. Politicization of 2A 2. 2A 3. Gun industry/economic impact (gun dealers, gun ranges, shows, manufacturers, etc 4. Hunting industry 5. Crime & bad areas (People want to be able to protect themselves) 6. Huge population/landmass with Individual states Thats just to name a few. If we had a dictator for a day we could ban them and tbh an Enlightened Despot is probably the best form of government until it isnt. But our form of representative democracy is not going to allow guns to be banned in the US. 1 is for sure. 2. The actual one says, in a well regulated militia, which would be the reserves now a days. If reservists had weapons and were able to be called upon when needed. It would actually make some sense, which is likely why it was worded as such even back then. Remember the first uses of this were to quell revolutions against Washington not the opposite, the opposite is your point 1. 3. This is a very minor concern (speaking overall and not of the individuals) % wise it is small, and that money and jobs would just flow into others. Not to mention all the heathcare savings, police, legal, prison savings for the government which would be reinvested else where in places without so much harm. 4. Would likely not be effected. Most hunting rifles are terrible for crime and rarely used in it. There would be lots of regulation but hunting would still happen. Also, most of the people I know that are under 40 are moving to bow hunting, and way prefer it. 5. This is the bad logic argument. Guns for protection are awful, there is a way greater chance of shooting ones self or family member, being shot by your own gun, then there is of fending off some attackers. Also, guns are what have helped to make that area so bad. 6. Others have huge land masses (like us!), it creates challenges no doubt. The whole state vs federal thing would certainly be a political issue but overcome able. Even look at Pot now, some states go firsts, others see the benefits and follow. Eventually the Feds will join when there is not enough to complain. Or in other cases the feds step in, there is lots of complaints, some states fight it but the change happens. (not without challenges of course). There is other democracies who have done it, it merely takes the populous and political will. It likely would have already happened if the US didn't have such bad campaign finance laws as the populous in high numbers would like way more regulation. It is going to be like a spectrum like most things, I would agree it is not going to move from now to a outright ban of all guns. But it can certainly start trending in that direction. I can assure you that guns for protection is an actual thing in the US, and it’s not awful. I know two woman that carry and feel immensely more comfortable in their lives because of it. Also, to bring down the amount of guns in circulation by a large margin will take decades of culture change and buyback proposals. It’s not easy. Other countries have done it, but America is not just another country. Small feel good regulations and laws aren’t cutting it, and they just further divide. If you bar is perceived safety than guns offer that. If you goal is actual safety guns do not offer that, and it has been proven over and over and over. The problem is simple but I would never say easy. You are right that there are additional challenges with the size and population, but that is not only a negative, they also have a shit ton more money every other country (I'm talking per capita) and you would not have the same logistics problem that we have being so sparse I mean really this is why people always bring up American exceptionalism because anytime change is suggested when logical reasons are exhausted those who still do not want the change decide "it won't work here". It would work there, just like it has in all the very different countries with very different problems else where in the world. I’m afraid “proven over and over and over”, is absolutely not true. There is no good metric or hard data on how many incidents are dissolved or worsened by having a gun. I’m assuming you are taking in suicides and accidental discharges by children, which are horrible, but irrelevant in the case of single woman living in not so great places. More guns = more gun violence. Be it by accident or by increased likelihood of escalating an otherwise nonviolent encounter, suicides. Pretty proven time and again. E.g. Rand studyShow nested quote +
Summary: Evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase total homicide rates is moderate, and evidence that such laws may increase firearm homicide rates is supportive. Evidence for the effect of stand-your ground laws on other types of violent crime is inconclusive.
For my lack of knowledge of US thinktank I went to mediabiasfactcheck to see what it says about RAND: LEAST BIASED Scientific American article. Show nested quote +
The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.
Can you provide evidence of the contrary?
In addition to that relatively hard proof, we've largely reached agreement in this thread that firing handguns accurately is quite difficult, so much so that their use by ostensibly trained police is questionable. That provides a fairly good basis for asserting that single women who consider their carrying a firearm a safety-increasing move are overconfident at best and outright delusional at worst. In either case, claims that carrying handguns make one safer clearly deserve significant scrutiny such that they cannot be relied on as a means of opposing increased gun control.
|
Californians, I don't know how serious this is, but take it from me and nearly every other trans person I know: we absolutely despise Caitlyn Jenner and everything she stands for. Please vote against her
|
If your in a fight or a personal dilemma or whatever. The easier it is to use more force, the easier it is for things to go really bad. Guns bring so much more power to any encounter and take away the need to be "close" or actually "cut deep enough to slit your vein and go thru with it while your doing it"... Guns hurt, they are made for it. People that feel guns make them save are just irritated and scared, by the things happening around them but there are and have to be better ways to make them feel save than this.
|
On April 24 2021 00:24 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 00:14 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:47 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:41 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:23 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 22:34 Sadist wrote:On April 23 2021 22:26 brian wrote:On April 23 2021 22:23 Sadist wrote:
Those suggesting Police not carry firearms and comparing it to a european country are seriously underestimating how many guns are in circulation in the US. Id be all for them not carrying if you could remove guns from the US population but that will never happen
i do think this is the one excellent point that could be brought up in defense of police, and my answer is get rid of the guns. it’s happened before in other countries, it being impossible is just more american exceptionalism. Its not american exceptionalism. Theres a host of things making this difficult that youd have to overcome. 1. Politicization of 2A 2. 2A 3. Gun industry/economic impact (gun dealers, gun ranges, shows, manufacturers, etc 4. Hunting industry 5. Crime & bad areas (People want to be able to protect themselves) 6. Huge population/landmass with Individual states Thats just to name a few. If we had a dictator for a day we could ban them and tbh an Enlightened Despot is probably the best form of government until it isnt. But our form of representative democracy is not going to allow guns to be banned in the US. 1 is for sure. 2. The actual one says, in a well regulated militia, which would be the reserves now a days. If reservists had weapons and were able to be called upon when needed. It would actually make some sense, which is likely why it was worded as such even back then. Remember the first uses of this were to quell revolutions against Washington not the opposite, the opposite is your point 1. 3. This is a very minor concern (speaking overall and not of the individuals) % wise it is small, and that money and jobs would just flow into others. Not to mention all the heathcare savings, police, legal, prison savings for the government which would be reinvested else where in places without so much harm. 4. Would likely not be effected. Most hunting rifles are terrible for crime and rarely used in it. There would be lots of regulation but hunting would still happen. Also, most of the people I know that are under 40 are moving to bow hunting, and way prefer it. 5. This is the bad logic argument. Guns for protection are awful, there is a way greater chance of shooting ones self or family member, being shot by your own gun, then there is of fending off some attackers. Also, guns are what have helped to make that area so bad. 6. Others have huge land masses (like us!), it creates challenges no doubt. The whole state vs federal thing would certainly be a political issue but overcome able. Even look at Pot now, some states go firsts, others see the benefits and follow. Eventually the Feds will join when there is not enough to complain. Or in other cases the feds step in, there is lots of complaints, some states fight it but the change happens. (not without challenges of course). There is other democracies who have done it, it merely takes the populous and political will. It likely would have already happened if the US didn't have such bad campaign finance laws as the populous in high numbers would like way more regulation. It is going to be like a spectrum like most things, I would agree it is not going to move from now to a outright ban of all guns. But it can certainly start trending in that direction. I can assure you that guns for protection is an actual thing in the US, and it’s not awful. I know two woman that carry and feel immensely more comfortable in their lives because of it. Also, to bring down the amount of guns in circulation by a large margin will take decades of culture change and buyback proposals. It’s not easy. Other countries have done it, but America is not just another country. Small feel good regulations and laws aren’t cutting it, and they just further divide. If you bar is perceived safety than guns offer that. If you goal is actual safety guns do not offer that, and it has been proven over and over and over. The problem is simple but I would never say easy. You are right that there are additional challenges with the size and population, but that is not only a negative, they also have a shit ton more money every other country (I'm talking per capita) and you would not have the same logistics problem that we have being so sparse I mean really this is why people always bring up American exceptionalism because anytime change is suggested when logical reasons are exhausted those who still do not want the change decide "it won't work here". It would work there, just like it has in all the very different countries with very different problems else where in the world. I’m afraid “proven over and over and over”, is absolutely not true. There is no good metric or hard data on how many incidents are dissolved or worsened by having a gun. I’m assuming you are taking in suicides and accidental discharges by children, which are horrible, but irrelevant in the case of single woman living in not so great places. More guns = more gun violence. Be it by accident or by increased likelihood of escalating an otherwise nonviolent encounter, suicides. Pretty proven time and again. E.g. Rand studyShow nested quote +
Summary: Evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase total homicide rates is moderate, and evidence that such laws may increase firearm homicide rates is supportive. Evidence for the effect of stand-your ground laws on other types of violent crime is inconclusive.
For my lack of knowledge of US thinktank I went to mediabiasfactcheck to see what it says about RAND: LEAST BIASED Scientific American article. Show nested quote +
The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTERCan you provide evidence of the contrary?
I can’t when you frame the argument as “more guns = more gun violence.” Because I agree with that statement and it’s only abundantly clear that the USA has more murders and gun violence because of our culture and the vast amount of guns in circulation.
But that is not what I was arguing or trying to defend. I was only saying that some woman do own firearms in bad neighborhoods and they honestly feel more confident and safe. Whether or not that is simply owning a firearm under the bed at night or concealed carry. The woman closest to me had an abusive ex and a threatening apartment neighbor who harassed her every time she went to work.
Telling her that “hey yo more gun = more violence, don’t you know the HARD FACTS? Let’s return that violence magnet and unarm you. That is really the only answer.”
That is not going to sway her mind. Because the nebulous and abstract gun violence data is irrelevant to her. The only thing that matters is when the drunk asshole bangs on her door and shouts for an hour, she can sleep easier.
|
On April 24 2021 00:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 16:41 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 08:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 07:34 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 07:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 04:21 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 02:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 02:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 00:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 23 2021 00:23 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
I don't mean to be obtuse but nobody did any stabbing, the suspect was executed before any stabbing occurred hence they were executed on the suspicion (you'd probably argue justified suspicion) that she was about to get stabby. I argue that it is immoral to give police the power of execution on situations like this.
This argument necessarily concludes with the idea that police should be required to let a victim be harmed (possibly killed) before they act with deadly force to stop a perpetrator, which you said you did not agree with about a page ago. There was no wiggle room in that video. If the cop waits for any more time to let the incident develop then it is extremely likely that the attacker would've stabbed the victim. She was in the motion to stab her when she was shot. This is correct. I do not think the police should have the right to execute people on the suspicion of about to commit a crime; they should do their absolute best to calm down the situation and non-lethally subdue the aggressor (if possible). Occasionally, the situation will get out of hand and someone will get hurt and potentially die... and hopefully, with enough training, the police should be successful the vast majority of the time and be able to defuse the situation and/or non-lethally subdue the attacker. Sometimes shit happens and people kill each other for no reason, just because a cop is present shouldn't carry an immediate death sentence for the potential perpetrator. Aside from being far too optimistic about someone's ability to be "defused"... Your argument is then tacitly admitting that you find the life of the attacker more ethically valuable than the life of the victim. Are you willing to admit to that? Also, you aren't "about to commit a crime" if you are actively attempting to shoot/stab/otherwise kill someone. You have already committed several and are in the process of committing another. It's not about whose life is worth saving -- ideally we should strive for no-one dying. What's unacceptable to me is empowering an individual to mete out a punishment that we as a society would deem monstrous if no law enforcement had been present. In addition, the risk for a miscarriage of justice currently outweighs the 'gain' of possibly preventing bodily harm to somebody else. It should go without saying that shooting people for non-violent crimes is beyond monstrous and you should do some serious soul-searching if you think shooting someone over an inanimate object is justified. At no point did I even imply the bolded part. You are either putting words in my mouth to strengthen your argument or confusing me with someone else. As to the italicized part, it's not meting out punishment; it's stopping a deadly crime from occurring and attempting to save a life. As I stated before, your position requires you to admit that you value the life of the attacker more than the victim in the posited scenario, so you need to justify that. I should have quoted the post I was responding to, my apologies. You are framing this as a binary choice when it is anything but. There are multiple endings to this particular scenario: 1 the cop shoots, misses and kills the wrong girl. 2. The cop shoots and kills the right girl. 3. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl with the knife stops mid-attack because she didn't really mean to attack the other girl or got cold feet or whatever. 4. The cop doesn't shoot and the girl stabs the other girl non-lethally, realises what she just did and drops the knife. 5. The cop doesn't shoot, the girl stabs and the other girl dies from her wounds. I have no idea what is the probability of any of these happening, but it is nonzero for all of them. In your opinion, what % threshold would 1+3+4 be in order for you to find unacceptable that the cop fired on the girl? If the probability of (1) is sufficiently high, then the cop shouldn't be shooting because he shouldn't be the cop. We all agree that both hiring and training standards should be higher so that this isn't an issue. I don't think (3) and (4) are relevant at all. If you have a deadly weapon and demonstrate both intent and physical action to kill someone (as I've said, this is currently occurring intent/action, not suspected) I don't think that the possibility of failing to kill someone should factor into the ability for either a cop or a victim to use deadly force to protect themselves/others. This would require either 1) mind-reading abilities or 2) precognition. If an individual loads a handgun, flips the safety off, points it in the direction of an innocent person, and then moves to pull the trigger, the perpetrator's skill (or lack thereof) in aiming and successfully killing the victim shouldn't factor into the moral justification of the state in defending said victim; the perpetrator forfeits their immediate right to life during the process of attempting to take away another person's life without legal justification. Your argument is so extreme that it essentially says that we shouldn't use deadly force to stop a mass shooter or terrorist who is actively trying to mow down people in public because law enforcement shouldn't be using deadly force. It even questions the state's ability to have an armed military to defend against an enemy army because hey, the state shouldn't be using deadly force. Hell, your argument undermines what is literally the entire philosophical basis for most societies for hundreds of years, namely that the state's first duty is to protect the life of its individuals against enemies and criminals. You vaguely reference some "extreme examples" where you vaguely imply that you might be OK with a police officer using deadly force, but somehow a person actively attempting to attack someone with a deadly weapon doesn't count. What crosses your threshold into an "extreme example"? Having a handgun instead of a firearm? That person could definitely miss. What about a fully automatic weapon in a crowded mall? That weapon could jam or the person could be so unfamiliar with it that they can't control it or aim it well, resulting in no serious injuries. You don't know what the particulars of that individual, so there are nearly infinite possibilities. Thanks for taking the time to type this, let's go point by point: 1. This is a situational issue. You could be the best marksman in the world, but if the would-be victim is in front of you and the would-be perpetrator is behind them, you have a higher chance of hitting the wrong girl. There will be instances where shooting at the attacker has a higher chance of getting someone else killed and this should be taken into account when making the decision of using deadly force. To your second point, it feels arbitrary to me that you wouldn't take into account the likelihood of the attacker to successfully carry out their attack when weighing the pros and cons of shooting someone. If someone is clearly acting erratically on drugs, brandishes a knife and waves it around while barely able to stand is a very different situation from someone in a military uniform getting into what looks like a training stance with an army knife in their hands. If you have a teenager in front of you waving around a kitchen knife you wouldn't be penalised for making the assumption that the girl hasn't been trained in close combat and is therefore unlikely to score a lethal hitnon the first try. I do not think that people forfeit their rights to live when they commit a crime, this is the whole crux of the argument. Like you have been saying to me, you are going to need to justify that. Would anyone in the world class a terrorist attack or a mass shooting event as anything other than an extreme situation? I wasn't specific, sure, but those two events are extreme by anyone's definition of an extreme event. The argument about undermining the philosophical basis for civilization is a weird one. We are not talking about removing the right to military personnel of killing their enemies, and we are not talking about removing police officers the right to protect citizens, just to do it without deadly force until a crime has actually been committed. This is a good discussion that I think boils down to this: 1) I think it is abundantly clear that the girl is in the act of committing the crime of trying to attack the girl in pink with a knife (and therefore likely kill her because a knife is a sufficiently deadly weapon). 2) I believe that people have a right to self-defense, including using deadly force if their life is imminently threatened and they have no feasible alternatives. Because not all citizens are capable of defending themselves, I believe that the state then has the right to use deadly force in limited circumstances to defend people. Therefore, I believe that someone who is actively attempting to kill someone else with a deadly weapon temporarily forfeits their right to life (only while in the process of committing the act) insofar as it becomes morally justifiable to use deadly self-defense against them. This really is just a long-winded way to justify using deadly force in these extreme examples we reference. I just think that this is a fairly clear example of not "suspecting" something happening, but actually watching it happen and then reacting.
Fair enough, I agree, we seem to be only arguing about what constitutes an extreme example. I do see your point and I do think it's a good one that I hadn't fully considered. People who cannot defend themselves do indeed deserve the state to step in to protect them and I agree with the principle of self-defence.
I think where we differ is that my threshold for what is justifiable is simply higher. To me, there should be no Shadow of a doubt that by executing the attacker you are indeed saving someone else's life, and therefore this would be an extremely rare occurrence. I would also add that current law enforcement in the US are incapable of making these types of decisions with anything resembling fairness or consistency, so I believe altogether we would be better off if the rules of engagement for police would exclude the use of deadly force altogether unless in extremely narrow and well-defined circumstances.
|
On April 24 2021 00:52 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 00:24 Artisreal wrote:On April 24 2021 00:14 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:47 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:41 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:23 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 22:34 Sadist wrote:On April 23 2021 22:26 brian wrote:On April 23 2021 22:23 Sadist wrote:
Those suggesting Police not carry firearms and comparing it to a european country are seriously underestimating how many guns are in circulation in the US. Id be all for them not carrying if you could remove guns from the US population but that will never happen
i do think this is the one excellent point that could be brought up in defense of police, and my answer is get rid of the guns. it’s happened before in other countries, it being impossible is just more american exceptionalism. Its not american exceptionalism. Theres a host of things making this difficult that youd have to overcome. 1. Politicization of 2A 2. 2A 3. Gun industry/economic impact (gun dealers, gun ranges, shows, manufacturers, etc 4. Hunting industry 5. Crime & bad areas (People want to be able to protect themselves) 6. Huge population/landmass with Individual states Thats just to name a few. If we had a dictator for a day we could ban them and tbh an Enlightened Despot is probably the best form of government until it isnt. But our form of representative democracy is not going to allow guns to be banned in the US. 1 is for sure. 2. The actual one says, in a well regulated militia, which would be the reserves now a days. If reservists had weapons and were able to be called upon when needed. It would actually make some sense, which is likely why it was worded as such even back then. Remember the first uses of this were to quell revolutions against Washington not the opposite, the opposite is your point 1. 3. This is a very minor concern (speaking overall and not of the individuals) % wise it is small, and that money and jobs would just flow into others. Not to mention all the heathcare savings, police, legal, prison savings for the government which would be reinvested else where in places without so much harm. 4. Would likely not be effected. Most hunting rifles are terrible for crime and rarely used in it. There would be lots of regulation but hunting would still happen. Also, most of the people I know that are under 40 are moving to bow hunting, and way prefer it. 5. This is the bad logic argument. Guns for protection are awful, there is a way greater chance of shooting ones self or family member, being shot by your own gun, then there is of fending off some attackers. Also, guns are what have helped to make that area so bad. 6. Others have huge land masses (like us!), it creates challenges no doubt. The whole state vs federal thing would certainly be a political issue but overcome able. Even look at Pot now, some states go firsts, others see the benefits and follow. Eventually the Feds will join when there is not enough to complain. Or in other cases the feds step in, there is lots of complaints, some states fight it but the change happens. (not without challenges of course). There is other democracies who have done it, it merely takes the populous and political will. It likely would have already happened if the US didn't have such bad campaign finance laws as the populous in high numbers would like way more regulation. It is going to be like a spectrum like most things, I would agree it is not going to move from now to a outright ban of all guns. But it can certainly start trending in that direction. I can assure you that guns for protection is an actual thing in the US, and it’s not awful. I know two woman that carry and feel immensely more comfortable in their lives because of it. Also, to bring down the amount of guns in circulation by a large margin will take decades of culture change and buyback proposals. It’s not easy. Other countries have done it, but America is not just another country. Small feel good regulations and laws aren’t cutting it, and they just further divide. If you bar is perceived safety than guns offer that. If you goal is actual safety guns do not offer that, and it has been proven over and over and over. The problem is simple but I would never say easy. You are right that there are additional challenges with the size and population, but that is not only a negative, they also have a shit ton more money every other country (I'm talking per capita) and you would not have the same logistics problem that we have being so sparse I mean really this is why people always bring up American exceptionalism because anytime change is suggested when logical reasons are exhausted those who still do not want the change decide "it won't work here". It would work there, just like it has in all the very different countries with very different problems else where in the world. I’m afraid “proven over and over and over”, is absolutely not true. There is no good metric or hard data on how many incidents are dissolved or worsened by having a gun. I’m assuming you are taking in suicides and accidental discharges by children, which are horrible, but irrelevant in the case of single woman living in not so great places. More guns = more gun violence. Be it by accident or by increased likelihood of escalating an otherwise nonviolent encounter, suicides. Pretty proven time and again. E.g. Rand study
Summary: Evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase total homicide rates is moderate, and evidence that such laws may increase firearm homicide rates is supportive. Evidence for the effect of stand-your ground laws on other types of violent crime is inconclusive.
For my lack of knowledge of US thinktank I went to mediabiasfactcheck to see what it says about RAND: LEAST BIASED Scientific American article.
The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTERCan you provide evidence of the contrary? I can’t when you frame the argument as “more guns = more gun violence.” Because I agree with that statement and it’s only abundantly clear that the USA has more murders and gun violence because of our culture and the vast amount of guns in circulation. But that is not what I was arguing or trying to defend. I was only saying that some woman do own firearms in bad neighborhoods and they honestly feel more confident and safe. Whether or not that is simply owning a firearm under the bed at night or concealed carry. The woman closest to me had an abusive ex and a threatening apartment neighbor who harassed her every time she went to work. Telling her that “hey yo more gun = more violence, don’t you know the HARD FACTS? Let’s return that violence magnet and unarm you. That is really the only answer.” That is not going to sway her mind. Because the nebulous and abstract gun violence data is irrelevant to her. The only thing that matters is when the drunk asshole bangs on her door and shouts for an hour, she can sleep easier.
JimmiC said that guns dont make people safe.
You said you dont believe so.
??
|
|
|
On April 24 2021 01:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 00:52 Husyelt wrote:On April 24 2021 00:24 Artisreal wrote:On April 24 2021 00:14 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:47 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:41 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:23 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 22:34 Sadist wrote:On April 23 2021 22:26 brian wrote:On April 23 2021 22:23 Sadist wrote:
Those suggesting Police not carry firearms and comparing it to a european country are seriously underestimating how many guns are in circulation in the US. Id be all for them not carrying if you could remove guns from the US population but that will never happen
i do think this is the one excellent point that could be brought up in defense of police, and my answer is get rid of the guns. it’s happened before in other countries, it being impossible is just more american exceptionalism. Its not american exceptionalism. Theres a host of things making this difficult that youd have to overcome. 1. Politicization of 2A 2. 2A 3. Gun industry/economic impact (gun dealers, gun ranges, shows, manufacturers, etc 4. Hunting industry 5. Crime & bad areas (People want to be able to protect themselves) 6. Huge population/landmass with Individual states Thats just to name a few. If we had a dictator for a day we could ban them and tbh an Enlightened Despot is probably the best form of government until it isnt. But our form of representative democracy is not going to allow guns to be banned in the US. 1 is for sure. 2. The actual one says, in a well regulated militia, which would be the reserves now a days. If reservists had weapons and were able to be called upon when needed. It would actually make some sense, which is likely why it was worded as such even back then. Remember the first uses of this were to quell revolutions against Washington not the opposite, the opposite is your point 1. 3. This is a very minor concern (speaking overall and not of the individuals) % wise it is small, and that money and jobs would just flow into others. Not to mention all the heathcare savings, police, legal, prison savings for the government which would be reinvested else where in places without so much harm. 4. Would likely not be effected. Most hunting rifles are terrible for crime and rarely used in it. There would be lots of regulation but hunting would still happen. Also, most of the people I know that are under 40 are moving to bow hunting, and way prefer it. 5. This is the bad logic argument. Guns for protection are awful, there is a way greater chance of shooting ones self or family member, being shot by your own gun, then there is of fending off some attackers. Also, guns are what have helped to make that area so bad. 6. Others have huge land masses (like us!), it creates challenges no doubt. The whole state vs federal thing would certainly be a political issue but overcome able. Even look at Pot now, some states go firsts, others see the benefits and follow. Eventually the Feds will join when there is not enough to complain. Or in other cases the feds step in, there is lots of complaints, some states fight it but the change happens. (not without challenges of course). There is other democracies who have done it, it merely takes the populous and political will. It likely would have already happened if the US didn't have such bad campaign finance laws as the populous in high numbers would like way more regulation. It is going to be like a spectrum like most things, I would agree it is not going to move from now to a outright ban of all guns. But it can certainly start trending in that direction. I can assure you that guns for protection is an actual thing in the US, and it’s not awful. I know two woman that carry and feel immensely more comfortable in their lives because of it. Also, to bring down the amount of guns in circulation by a large margin will take decades of culture change and buyback proposals. It’s not easy. Other countries have done it, but America is not just another country. Small feel good regulations and laws aren’t cutting it, and they just further divide. If you bar is perceived safety than guns offer that. If you goal is actual safety guns do not offer that, and it has been proven over and over and over. The problem is simple but I would never say easy. You are right that there are additional challenges with the size and population, but that is not only a negative, they also have a shit ton more money every other country (I'm talking per capita) and you would not have the same logistics problem that we have being so sparse I mean really this is why people always bring up American exceptionalism because anytime change is suggested when logical reasons are exhausted those who still do not want the change decide "it won't work here". It would work there, just like it has in all the very different countries with very different problems else where in the world. I’m afraid “proven over and over and over”, is absolutely not true. There is no good metric or hard data on how many incidents are dissolved or worsened by having a gun. I’m assuming you are taking in suicides and accidental discharges by children, which are horrible, but irrelevant in the case of single woman living in not so great places. More guns = more gun violence. Be it by accident or by increased likelihood of escalating an otherwise nonviolent encounter, suicides. Pretty proven time and again. E.g. Rand study
Summary: Evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase total homicide rates is moderate, and evidence that such laws may increase firearm homicide rates is supportive. Evidence for the effect of stand-your ground laws on other types of violent crime is inconclusive.
For my lack of knowledge of US thinktank I went to mediabiasfactcheck to see what it says about RAND: LEAST BIASED Scientific American article.
The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTERCan you provide evidence of the contrary? I can’t when you frame the argument as “more guns = more gun violence.” Because I agree with that statement and it’s only abundantly clear that the USA has more murders and gun violence because of our culture and the vast amount of guns in circulation. But that is not what I was arguing or trying to defend. I was only saying that some woman do own firearms in bad neighborhoods and they honestly feel more confident and safe. Whether or not that is simply owning a firearm under the bed at night or concealed carry. The woman closest to me had an abusive ex and a threatening apartment neighbor who harassed her every time she went to work. Telling her that “hey yo more gun = more violence, don’t you know the HARD FACTS? Let’s return that violence magnet and unarm you. That is really the only answer.” That is not going to sway her mind. Because the nebulous and abstract gun violence data is irrelevant to her. The only thing that matters is when the drunk asshole bangs on her door and shouts for an hour, she can sleep easier. Like I said earlier, guns do work for perceived safety. But perception and reality are often very different. As Farv up a little higher points out accuracy is a major issue. Keeping the gun in a safe location and retrieving in a time that would actually help it is a issue. Having the psychological ability to pull the trigger and kill another human in the short time is an issue. Not having the gun taken and used against you is an issue. That most attacks would be a blitz on the street from a sight unseen means that gun in the purse is more likely to end up with the other than in your hand, an attack at home could happen in the night and even if under your pillow might take you too long to "wake up". And before all those you also have all the accidental shootings and so on to worry about. The statistics and data all show it is less safe to own a gun, and the numbers only get worse the less you train and practice. They also get worse the more available you make the gun, but you need the gun very available to stop this possible attack that could happen at any moment. There is the other thread on mass shootings where this has been done over and over that I speak of. What happens is pro gun people say they are safer, gun control people produce mountains of evidence (including American data), pro gun freedom people produce no data to back up their claims of safety. It really comes down to facts vs feelings, and I'm not saying that insultingly it is just the way it is. Guns make people feel safe, but guns do not make anyone safe, this is why in the places with the least violence they even remove them from police because even in their hands accidents happen and accidents with guns often mean death or life changing (for the worse) injury.
Again, I think we are talking around eachother. I am in agreement with almost everything you say, and what the other posters are bringing up.
I can only speak anecdotally in two cases where single women bought firearms for their safety, and legitimately felt safer sleeping at night and in the one case going to and from work. That's it. And I wouldn't for a minute try and talk them out of it, or bring up gun data, that in no way affects their current circumstance.
|
|
|
People need to remember to not mis-apply statistics.
Population level statistics don't define an individual's safety because they don't take into account the personal ability of the user or the life situations they face.
Population level statistics are good for public policy that applies to populations. They aren't good for defining an individual person's experience.
|
On April 24 2021 01:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 01:36 Husyelt wrote:On April 24 2021 01:19 JimmiC wrote:On April 24 2021 00:52 Husyelt wrote:On April 24 2021 00:24 Artisreal wrote:On April 24 2021 00:14 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:47 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 23:41 Husyelt wrote:On April 23 2021 23:23 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 22:34 Sadist wrote:
[quote]
Its not american exceptionalism. Theres a host of things making this difficult that youd have to overcome.
1. Politicization of 2A
2. 2A
3. Gun industry/economic impact (gun dealers, gun ranges, shows, manufacturers, etc
4. Hunting industry
5. Crime & bad areas (People want to be able to protect themselves)
6. Huge population/landmass with Individual states
Thats just to name a few. If we had a dictator for a day we could ban them and tbh an Enlightened Despot is probably the best form of government until it isnt. But our form of representative democracy is not going to allow guns to be banned in the US.
1 is for sure. 2. The actual one says, in a well regulated militia, which would be the reserves now a days. If reservists had weapons and were able to be called upon when needed. It would actually make some sense, which is likely why it was worded as such even back then. Remember the first uses of this were to quell revolutions against Washington not the opposite, the opposite is your point 1. 3. This is a very minor concern (speaking overall and not of the individuals) % wise it is small, and that money and jobs would just flow into others. Not to mention all the heathcare savings, police, legal, prison savings for the government which would be reinvested else where in places without so much harm. 4. Would likely not be effected. Most hunting rifles are terrible for crime and rarely used in it. There would be lots of regulation but hunting would still happen. Also, most of the people I know that are under 40 are moving to bow hunting, and way prefer it. 5. This is the bad logic argument. Guns for protection are awful, there is a way greater chance of shooting ones self or family member, being shot by your own gun, then there is of fending off some attackers. Also, guns are what have helped to make that area so bad. 6. Others have huge land masses (like us!), it creates challenges no doubt. The whole state vs federal thing would certainly be a political issue but overcome able. Even look at Pot now, some states go firsts, others see the benefits and follow. Eventually the Feds will join when there is not enough to complain. Or in other cases the feds step in, there is lots of complaints, some states fight it but the change happens. (not without challenges of course). There is other democracies who have done it, it merely takes the populous and political will. It likely would have already happened if the US didn't have such bad campaign finance laws as the populous in high numbers would like way more regulation. It is going to be like a spectrum like most things, I would agree it is not going to move from now to a outright ban of all guns. But it can certainly start trending in that direction. I can assure you that guns for protection is an actual thing in the US, and it’s not awful. I know two woman that carry and feel immensely more comfortable in their lives because of it. Also, to bring down the amount of guns in circulation by a large margin will take decades of culture change and buyback proposals. It’s not easy. Other countries have done it, but America is not just another country. Small feel good regulations and laws aren’t cutting it, and they just further divide. If you bar is perceived safety than guns offer that. If you goal is actual safety guns do not offer that, and it has been proven over and over and over. The problem is simple but I would never say easy. You are right that there are additional challenges with the size and population, but that is not only a negative, they also have a shit ton more money every other country (I'm talking per capita) and you would not have the same logistics problem that we have being so sparse I mean really this is why people always bring up American exceptionalism because anytime change is suggested when logical reasons are exhausted those who still do not want the change decide "it won't work here". It would work there, just like it has in all the very different countries with very different problems else where in the world. I’m afraid “proven over and over and over”, is absolutely not true. There is no good metric or hard data on how many incidents are dissolved or worsened by having a gun. I’m assuming you are taking in suicides and accidental discharges by children, which are horrible, but irrelevant in the case of single woman living in not so great places. More guns = more gun violence. Be it by accident or by increased likelihood of escalating an otherwise nonviolent encounter, suicides. Pretty proven time and again. E.g. Rand study
Summary: Evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase total homicide rates is moderate, and evidence that such laws may increase firearm homicide rates is supportive. Evidence for the effect of stand-your ground laws on other types of violent crime is inconclusive.
For my lack of knowledge of US thinktank I went to mediabiasfactcheck to see what it says about RAND: LEAST BIASED Scientific American article.
The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTERCan you provide evidence of the contrary? I can’t when you frame the argument as “more guns = more gun violence.” Because I agree with that statement and it’s only abundantly clear that the USA has more murders and gun violence because of our culture and the vast amount of guns in circulation. But that is not what I was arguing or trying to defend. I was only saying that some woman do own firearms in bad neighborhoods and they honestly feel more confident and safe. Whether or not that is simply owning a firearm under the bed at night or concealed carry. The woman closest to me had an abusive ex and a threatening apartment neighbor who harassed her every time she went to work. Telling her that “hey yo more gun = more violence, don’t you know the HARD FACTS? Let’s return that violence magnet and unarm you. That is really the only answer.” That is not going to sway her mind. Because the nebulous and abstract gun violence data is irrelevant to her. The only thing that matters is when the drunk asshole bangs on her door and shouts for an hour, she can sleep easier. Like I said earlier, guns do work for perceived safety. But perception and reality are often very different. As Farv up a little higher points out accuracy is a major issue. Keeping the gun in a safe location and retrieving in a time that would actually help it is a issue. Having the psychological ability to pull the trigger and kill another human in the short time is an issue. Not having the gun taken and used against you is an issue. That most attacks would be a blitz on the street from a sight unseen means that gun in the purse is more likely to end up with the other than in your hand, an attack at home could happen in the night and even if under your pillow might take you too long to "wake up". And before all those you also have all the accidental shootings and so on to worry about. The statistics and data all show it is less safe to own a gun, and the numbers only get worse the less you train and practice. They also get worse the more available you make the gun, but you need the gun very available to stop this possible attack that could happen at any moment. There is the other thread on mass shootings where this has been done over and over that I speak of. What happens is pro gun people say they are safer, gun control people produce mountains of evidence (including American data), pro gun freedom people produce no data to back up their claims of safety. It really comes down to facts vs feelings, and I'm not saying that insultingly it is just the way it is. Guns make people feel safe, but guns do not make anyone safe, this is why in the places with the least violence they even remove them from police because even in their hands accidents happen and accidents with guns often mean death or life changing (for the worse) injury. Again, I think we are talking around eachother. I am in agreement with almost everything you say, and what the other posters are bringing up. I can only speak anecdotally in two cases where single women bought firearms for their safety, and legitimately felt safer sleeping at night and in the one case going to and from work. That's it. And I wouldn't for a minute try and talk them out of it, or bring up gun data, that in no way affects their current circumstance. I mean it does, because they are not safer with them. It comes down to whether it is more important to be safer, or to feel safer. I dont understand why some people pick the feeling because for me once I learn the facts the feelings change, but I also understand that some are different and value the feelings the more. Where it becomes more difficult is that those ladies carrying guns also makes it less safe for others around them and they don't get any say.
I mean it does, because they are not safer with them.
They might argue differently, because their current circumstance does not go 1:1 with the overall data. Their lives and outcomes are not determined by the math calculated through the various studies.
A woman who owns a gun, and never uses it, or uses it, (reveals she has a weapon either in the home or outside,) is not easily placed into any of these studies. And in fact might not want to advertise she has one or used it. We can make rough estimates and those cases might indeed be rare, but I would argue its not as rare as + Show Spoiler + this kinda of stuff would claim.
A single woman owning a firearm, should not be lumped into the same data as a woman owning or sharing a gun with an abusive ex who ends up killing her with that gun. Nor should they be lumped in with families who don't own gun safes and let their toddlers blow their brains out on the carpet floor.
We can agree that mo guns = mo problems for society overall. And I would love for the US to lose some of its gun culture over the next few decades. But lets not pretend that all human interactions with guns are =.
Show nested quote +On April 24 2021 03:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:
People need to remember to not mis-apply statistics.
Population level statistics don't define an individual's safety because they don't take into account the personal ability of the user or the life situations they face.
Population level statistics are good for public policy that applies to populations. They aren't good for defining an individual person's experience.
Yes, this.
|
On April 23 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 23:47 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 06:29 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 05:27 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:01 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 04:44 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:Why would you assume that Kwark was saying frequently as a percentage of arrests and not frequently in comparison to other places where he believes police to a better job? Again if you want to be the word police you can't be so willynilly yourself. You need to have the sense to not just read one sentence and treat it as if it was not part of a larger comment and more than that a conversation. Other countries have similar numbers of interactions and yet far less of these incidents that is simply factual. That it makes up a small % of total interactions is ridiculous because it should make up far fewer. So I need to guess the meaning of his words in relation to a point he was not making, has not specified and was not in discussion at the time, because otherwise I am being the word police? I have yet to see Kwark clarify anything in the way you are attributing his intention. He has not even clarified what he means exactly in the specific words he used. Is it in regards to initial reason for the police encounter? Or literal as in police show up and shoot robbers fleeing with TV's in the back. On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:The frequency is far to high and could be lowered, that is the point. And it is in every like country, the US is exceptionally bad. The standard should not be whether or not you are more or less likely to be shot and killed by the police or a criminal. You should have no fear of being killed by the police, because the amount of people killed by the police should actually be infinitesimal like it is in other countries, and the instances should be where it is clear that it was the only option, and if it was not only options there should be consequences. This is not in the realm of the same discussion. You understand that right? I can literally agree with everything you wrote and disagree with what Kwark said. It would be like if everyone was discussing the shooting of Jason Peterson in Canada and I chimed in "Very frequently the police in Canada use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone". You would obviously get my meaning and realize I mean in regards to other country's shootings by police rate, and frequent would be subjective in that way, and deprive property would mean any instance where someone is killed by police for any reason? And you would agree with me completely, no need for clarification, specifics, or relation to the topic at hand. So anyway, why are Canadian police so quick to shoot people in the back for stealing TV's all the time? Your last analogy/example whatever it is so wholly misses the mark, its impossible to discuss. Why? The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions in Canada is greater than by stolen TVs. The police in Canada are constantly very frequently doing it. Pointing it out and discussing it seems reasonable. Well in that case the police call was about a man with a shotgun, holding someone hostage, who claimed he wanted to die by the police. And then the police waited until after the man fired his shotgun to shoot him. So given that this is one of the few examples where deadly force was very likely the police officers only choice was to fire, I'd just present the facts of the situation and likely few would disagree. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/cannon-plaza-police-shooting-1.5963568But I mean it gets back to the way you argue, when it is not going how you like, you distract. No no, remember I am not discussing that. I am talking about the very frequent times people are shot dead for depriving property in Canada by police. Like this one, or this one, or this one, or this. And don't get me started on the outright war on people suffering mental breakdowns Canadian cops do. It's also open season out there on indigenous people. Am i doing this right? To some of your more recent examples I'm not sure because you posted the initial stories which don't say what happened unlike the first one. But if it was the case that they were killed for property than I agree it is too frequent and we also need to do better. Not nearly as frequent as the US, but not infinitesimal either. It is sad that it becomes more frequent as more and more guns make there way across our border. Happy to have that discussion in the Canadian politics thread if you would like? Sure. Lot of jurisdictions, not completely knowledgeable on how training and recruitment is performed in each. I would not continue to use the language of that post as it was suppose to hyperbolize the extent and specifics. But Canada does seem to get a pass for some of their police issues and could probably use a good amount of reflection on changing tactics like the US does. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2021 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 06:16 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 05:27 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 05:01 JimmiC wrote:On April 23 2021 04:44 dp wrote:On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:Why would you assume that Kwark was saying frequently as a percentage of arrests and not frequently in comparison to other places where he believes police to a better job? Again if you want to be the word police you can't be so willynilly yourself. You need to have the sense to not just read one sentence and treat it as if it was not part of a larger comment and more than that a conversation. Other countries have similar numbers of interactions and yet far less of these incidents that is simply factual. That it makes up a small % of total interactions is ridiculous because it should make up far fewer. So I need to guess the meaning of his words in relation to a point he was not making, has not specified and was not in discussion at the time, because otherwise I am being the word police? I have yet to see Kwark clarify anything in the way you are attributing his intention. He has not even clarified what he means exactly in the specific words he used. Is it in regards to initial reason for the police encounter? Or literal as in police show up and shoot robbers fleeing with TV's in the back. On April 23 2021 01:28 JimmiC wrote:The frequency is far to high and could be lowered, that is the point. And it is in every like country, the US is exceptionally bad. The standard should not be whether or not you are more or less likely to be shot and killed by the police or a criminal. You should have no fear of being killed by the police, because the amount of people killed by the police should actually be infinitesimal like it is in other countries, and the instances should be where it is clear that it was the only option, and if it was not only options there should be consequences. This is not in the realm of the same discussion. You understand that right? I can literally agree with everything you wrote and disagree with what Kwark said. It would be like if everyone was discussing the shooting of Jason Peterson in Canada and I chimed in "Very frequently the police in Canada use deadly force against a suspect who was attempting to deprive someone of property rather than kill anyone". You would obviously get my meaning and realize I mean in regards to other country's shootings by police rate, and frequent would be subjective in that way, and deprive property would mean any instance where someone is killed by police for any reason? And you would agree with me completely, no need for clarification, specifics, or relation to the topic at hand. So anyway, why are Canadian police so quick to shoot people in the back for stealing TV's all the time? Your last analogy/example whatever it is so wholly misses the mark, its impossible to discuss. Why? The harm done to society by extrajudicial police executions in Canada is greater than by stolen TVs. The police in Canada are constantly very frequently doing it. Pointing it out and discussing it seems reasonable. Well in that case the police call was about a man with a shotgun, holding someone hostage, who claimed he wanted to die by the police. And then the police waited until after the man fired his shotgun to shoot him. So given that this is one of the few examples where deadly force was very likely the police officers only choice was to fire, I'd just present the facts of the situation and likely few would disagree. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/cannon-plaza-police-shooting-1.5963568But I mean it gets back to the way you argue, when it is not going how you like, you distract. No no, remember I am not discussing that. I am talking about the very frequent times people are shot dead for depriving property in Canada by police. Like this one, or this one, or this one, or this. And don't get me started on the outright war on people suffering mental breakdowns Canadian cops do. It's also open season out there on indigenous people. Am i doing this right? no your not doing right in the slightest. It worked for Kwark because US cops are generally considered to be crap and they shoot way to many people so everyone just goes "yeah that checks out". Canada does not have that reputation. Its the same with why the shooting of the girl lead to so much discussion. Its not that this specific case was so horribly bad and unequivocally wrong, but because so many people die needlessly to cops its reasonably safe to start from the position that the cop was wrong and work from there. Reputation matters in how people perceive someone's actions. No, numbers matter. Which is why I brought up Canada. It stands quite a bit above our European counterparts in regards to police killings. Less than the US, but by no means a beacon of police restraint. Nearly 3x more than France, 20x more than the UK. On April 23 2021 06:59 EnDeR_ wrote:
So, for the sake of this argument, let's say that there were 3k shootings in a year and 1/6th of those happened to suspects commuting property crime, which leaves us with about 500 every year.
That's about twice a day. You could certainly describe that as "frequently".
I would argue that something that happens weekly (so one order of magnitude less frequently than what I assumed above) would still be described as frequently according to the dictionary definition so I'd say Kwark was justified in his use of the word frequently. You do see my problem with counting shootings as a response to property crime, when the cause of the shooting is in no way related to the property crime right? It feels like whenever I try to address this, there is no confirmation that the point is actually getting across. Yes, the police are there originally for a non-violent crime. What actually caused the shooting that occurs should matter though. Unless the remedy is not enforcing the law moving forward. We do need a change to both the justice system and police training. But as long as the public at large take police interactions from a ticketed situation into a knife/gun fight, these will continue albeit at a smaller rate. Externally maybe, but that is because we are small in population and so on so people just don't talk about us. There is a lot of talk up here about police reform, there are problems here, I would never say we are perfect or even that close. We have similar problems that you have, just less. Partly because we are so influenced by US culture, partly because so many of your guns make it over our boarders. The biggest difference is people like me are the vast majority, we don't want more guns, we don't think our police should kill people, we don't think people should kill people (we are pretty darn open to fist fighting though, especially if done on ice! That to us is just a good time and should be celebrated with beers after!)
US police culture, gun culture or gang culture affects it? I don't see those as legitimate reasonings, unless you have some evidence to suggest it directly played a part in any given killing. Nor have I seen any data to suggest US guns are a cause for any % of the police killings in CA.
Not sure why wanting more guns plays a part either. And the rest is pretty much universal in any country, besides the 'on ice' portion of course.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 23 2021 17:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 17:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 23 2021 03:33 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
One thing that is missing here is that if a cop HAS to shoot at someone threatening someone else with a knife, he should at the very least aim to shoot one bullet in a non lethal area. You can absolutely disable someone with a gun without putting four bullets in his chest. I can guarantee that someone with a bullet is the leg, in the shoulder or in the arm is not a threat, knofe or not. I don’t think this is right. They can’t shoot for shit, aiming at centre mass is the safest way to not shoot someone else. Ok, but then what’s the benefit of shooting four bullets? Why not shoot one when there is at least a chance the victim survives, which is always, 100% cases, the best option? Police probably did some stats and found that shooting only once probably doesn't stop the threat in the majority of situations, you have to take into account poor aim and low stopping power of bullets in the first place. In a climate where threat elimination is the goal, police are likely trained to shoot their guns 4 times to stop a threat. This officer probably just followed their training. The whole thing is insane. My impression discussing with people from the US is that, beyond the police, lots of people find it reasonable to kill someone if they do the wrong thing or could be a threat. I have never met anyone here that thought that shooting someone who trespasses on your property is anything else than cold murder unless they directly threaten your life. Seems to be perfectly fine for lots of americans. You can train and form the police all you want, if folks think that assasssinating the bad guy is the way to go, those killings will continue.
Yeah this cannot be stressed enough. I think even a lot of left leaning americans are nonetheless steeped in this culture that the world is divided into criminal and non-criminal, and that killing criminals is just part of the job for military and police. We have dozens of popular cop dramas where this formula is hammered out repeatedly for entertainment.
|
On April 24 2021 04:02 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 17:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 23 2021 17:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 23 2021 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 23 2021 03:33 KwarK wrote:On April 23 2021 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
One thing that is missing here is that if a cop HAS to shoot at someone threatening someone else with a knife, he should at the very least aim to shoot one bullet in a non lethal area. You can absolutely disable someone with a gun without putting four bullets in his chest. I can guarantee that someone with a bullet is the leg, in the shoulder or in the arm is not a threat, knofe or not. I don’t think this is right. They can’t shoot for shit, aiming at centre mass is the safest way to not shoot someone else. Ok, but then what’s the benefit of shooting four bullets? Why not shoot one when there is at least a chance the victim survives, which is always, 100% cases, the best option? Police probably did some stats and found that shooting only once probably doesn't stop the threat in the majority of situations, you have to take into account poor aim and low stopping power of bullets in the first place. In a climate where threat elimination is the goal, police are likely trained to shoot their guns 4 times to stop a threat. This officer probably just followed their training. The whole thing is insane. My impression discussing with people from the US is that, beyond the police, lots of people find it reasonable to kill someone if they do the wrong thing or could be a threat. I have never met anyone here that thought that shooting someone who trespasses on your property is anything else than cold murder unless they directly threaten your life. Seems to be perfectly fine for lots of americans. You can train and form the police all you want, if folks think that assasssinating the bad guy is the way to go, those killings will continue. Yeah this cannot be stressed enough. I think even a lot of left leaning americans are nonetheless steeped in this culture that the world is divided into criminal and non-criminal, and that killing criminals is just part of the job for military and police. We have dozens of popular cop dramas where this formula is hammered out repeatedly for entertainment.
Shows like Law and Order are far more insidious than they seem at first glance and they certainly deserve being labeled copaganda like Cops and Live PD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
