Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087048 Posts in 71973 Topics- by 19232 Members - Latest Member: Bach to the future
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: GUNS CHAPTER TWO //2nd AMENDMENT  (Read 6217 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SteveP
*
Offline Offline

Location: Arizona Desert
Joined: Sep 25, 2014
Posts: 35

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2016, 10:41AM »

Uh, that was Texas... not California. You know, the state where gun nut jobs protest anti-gun people by parking in the parking lot with a crap ton of fairly useless but scary looking armaments. I think they have enough guns.  ;-)

Too bad that "allow themselves to become a victim shtick" is just bs propaganda from the gun manufactures to get you to buy more guns.
Texas carry requires a license, or "permission", to exercise your constitutional right.  Arizona, and many other states as well, require no license for open or concealed carry.  It is far more likely that a person in one of these "constitutional carry" states would be armed and, therefore, able to "not become a victim."  I know that phrase drives you nuts.  That's why I repeated it.
Logged

Steve
Lake Havasu Regional Orchestra
Lake Havasu Symphonic Winds
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2016, 12:24PM »

Texas carry requires a license, or "permission", to exercise your constitutional right.  Arizona, and many other states as well, require no license for open or concealed carry.  It is far more likely that a person in one of these "constitutional carry" states would be armed and, therefore, able to "not become a victim."  I know that phrase drives you nuts.  That's why I repeated it.

One of the guys who was shot was trying to "not become a victim".  Didn't help him.  Remember, you are trying to draw, and he's already shooting.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2016, 01:47PM »

One of the guys who was shot was trying to "not become a victim".  Didn't help him.  Remember, you are trying to draw, and he's already shooting.
 
How do you know it didn't help him? Are you presuming that being helped equates to a condition such that you somehow can't be shot, or that if you're shot therefore whatever you did wasn't helpful? That sounds like you think guns are supposed to be magical talismans and aren't useful at all if they don't completely shield their wielders from any harm.
 
You're using a perfectionist fallacy, and you know better ... well, you usually know better, anyway (besides the old problem of arguing tactics when--remember, you've made it crystal clear you have no training and don't understand them).
 
Do you think this way in terms of medicine or medical therapies ... or in any other context? If your condition doesn't go away completely or isn't fully prevented, the therapy is therefore a failure--useless. Or is it just guns? Exercise and good diet don't prevent death--they don't even guarantee you won't suffer the diseases it's supposed to help prevent, therefore there's no good reason to exercise or eat right. Or is it just guns ... eh? A fire extinguisher won't prevent a fire or even guarantee you can stop it from spreading. It won't even guarantee you can prevent yourself or your loves ones (or just fellow residents) from being harmed, so why keep one around? Or is that just guns?
 
 --
 
Note that I'm not arguing concealed carry made this situation better or even couldn't have made it worse, nor that I'm somehow immune to or a master of what I am arguing. Those kinds of "counter-arguments" are red herrings--avoiding the actual issue I am arguing (and also pretty common, unfortunately), and should send up red self-regulation flags. If they don't go up "naturally", and if they can't be raised by external criticism, then the first step in correcting what I am arguing against hasn't been completed.
 
I'm arguing, mostly at least, against casual presumption and poorly managed biases--that if we were by and large more inclined to take honesty more seriously we'd have a lot less self-imposed nonsense to navigate when we try to deal with problems and generally get along with each other.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51134
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2016, 06:55PM »

No.  The fallacy being held by a lot of arms carriers is that if everybody was armed then a shooting would be prevented at every step.

This is not true.  Sure, it's possible that an arms carrying bystander could have ended the situation, but remember this:  if you are going to try to stop a gunfight and he's already shooting and you still need to unholster, you are at a severe disadvantage.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
SteveP
*
Offline Offline

Location: Arizona Desert
Joined: Sep 25, 2014
Posts: 35

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2016, 07:57PM »

The fallacy being held by a lot of arms carriers is that if everybody was armed then a shooting would be prevented at every step.
Not correct.  If everybody was armed it might be possible for one or more of them to prevent a shooting.  If no one is armed that possibility drops to close to zero.  Do you favor a possibility of preventing that shooting or do you prefer zero chance of preventing that shooting?  To me the answer is clear.
Logged

Steve
Lake Havasu Regional Orchestra
Lake Havasu Symphonic Winds
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2016, 08:35PM »

No.  The fallacy being held by a lot of arms carriers is that if everybody was armed then a shooting would be prevented at every step.
So you're using fallacies to argue against fallacies. You don't have to do that. When you do, as you have been and generally do when you try to argue tactics, you just demonstrate you don't really understand the issue. It also raises the question of why you do this regarding guns when you don't normally make such regularly fallacious arguments for other issues (well, it's not really a question, it really just punctuates what's already rather obvious).
 
In any case why are you directing these posts toward me as if I've made that argument? If you want to make that point then make it, but you seem to think you're arguing against me for some reason. Do you just presume this is the position of all who make arguments against some gun control positions?
 
This is not true.  Sure, it's possible that an arms carrying bystander could have ended the situation, but remember this: if you are going to try to stop a gunfight and he's already shooting and you still need to unholster, you are at a severe disadvantage.
Remember this? You seem to be presuming to instruct me on tactics. We've been over that one before. Stop. You don't know what you're talking about. You make points like this that are about as helpful as telling a baseball player (not a complete beginner or a child) that if you swing away trying to hit a pitch and you don't feel anything but air and you don't hear anything but something that sounds like a ball smacking a catcher's glove a split second later, it means you missed. And by imparting this information you seem to think you're coaching (or like instructing a high school trombonist that if the outer slide comes off of the inners while you're playing, you've moved the slide too far out). Yeah ... thanks dude.
 
It reminds me of a guy working at McDonald's back in the day who was talking about hysterectomies for whatever reason (my wife and I were dropping by to see a friend who was the manager). My friend, his boss, pointed out to him that my wife's a doctor (a brand new one at the time, granted) and he still presumed to continue explaining them to her (his ego was too fragile to let him drop it like a reasonable person would, I gather), and he was laughably wrong (at least in this case you're not really wrong--at least not technically/yet--we'll see how that goes if you do like that guy and decide to go into further details).
 
At any rate your argument isn't against carrying, it's maybe an argument against letting someone get the drop on you if you can avoid it, if I'm to give you the rather generous benefit of the doubt (which I gladly will if you take it). It's also not an argument against a carrier drawing his/her weapon when fired upon. There's no such thing as calling Time Out! in combat. Well ... I guess that's technically not true. You can try it of course, but it's not recommended. The best tactic is to bug out post haste if you can (even if you risk the shooter getting another shot or two off at you), but if you can't bug out post haste or make an effective hand-to-hand attack that will prevent the shooter from continuing to fire, then if you can arm yourself you'd damn well best do so ASAP.
 
So your point is really just a blatantly obvious comment that you're in a bad situation if someone starts shooting at you in close quarters. And you seem to think sharing that information is instructing me and other readers in here. Awesome.
 
This also reminds me of a friend with a food addiction who once asked me; You know how to avoid burning your mouth on hot food? We'd just gotten burgers or hot dogs or something at a barbecue. He was asking this as if he were about to impart some kind of fresh wisdom upon me. I basically said "Go on." with an expression. He triumphantly replied, "Wait!" Yeah ... thanks dude. If he wasn't joking, and he didn't seem to be (and of course he had a food addiction issue), he was obviously projecting his own mentality regarding food and seemed to think this was something that hadn't occurred to me before, or maybe just that he'd cast new light on for me, just as you seem to think you're somehow doing by "explaining" that it's a bad situation to discover someone shooting at you, and that it's still a bad situation even if you're carrying a gun. Yeah ... thanks dude. Don't know what I'd do without that bit of wisdom there.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
harrison.t.reed
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colorado
Joined: Apr 5, 2007
Posts: 2698
"Spartan Brass Band!"


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2016, 10:01PM »

I love how people argue over this as if the Constitution did not actually give the right in plain english. There's nothing to argue over. Just write your congressmen and tell them that you either want the Constitution ammended (thereby REDUCING the freedoms that the Constitution protects -- an odd move), or write your congressmen and tell them to uphold the Constitution and stop arguing in the media over gun control. All this banter about limiting rights set to paper in our Constitution is silly. Ammend it to give marriage rights to all people who are of age regardless of sexual orientation? Sounds like freedom to me! Ammend it to eliminate gender as a statistic and legal status that we care about (making facilities unisex), in an effort to end this absurd gender inequality and victim culture perpetuated by professional victims in the neo-feminism movement? Sounds like freedom to me! Eliminate the freedom to carry weapons? Wait ... no! That's not right .... that's taking away freedoms.

In my mind, it's akin to trying to fight the Constitution and ban books and free speech because you perceive some books as a threat. Many people do this too. They are called socialists. Pick any of the rights the Constitution provides and try arguing against it. Or try arguing that the language is not clear so we should limit what that right is. It's nuts! Trust in the founding fathers. They were much more intelligent than politicians today in matters of liberty and getting rid of tyranny.
Logged

"My technique is as good as Initial D"
T-396A - Griego 1C
88HTCL - Griego 1C
36H - DE XT105, C+, D Alto Shank
3B/F Silversonic - Griego 1A ss
pBone (with Yellow bell for bright tone)
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2016, 04:50AM »

.

In my mind, it's akin to trying to fight the Constitution and ban books and free speech because you perceive some books as a threat.

In arguing the issue too narrowly, you are forced to minimize the fact that in the US guns ARE a threat. 

That is not universally true.  There are other countries with as many or more guns per capita than the US where guns are not a threat.

In seeing the issue so narrowly, people come to only two conclusions:  we reduce the threat by eliminating guns, or we reduce the threat by getting lots more guns.  Both sides argue their position vociferously.

However, neither course of action is likely to have any significant impact.  We need to address the culture of violence we have built. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2016, 05:08AM »

I love how people argue over this as if the Constitution did not actually give the right in plain english.

Are you suggesting "the right to keep and bear arms" is unambiguous (for starters)? that the congress and SCOTUS don't have any significant say in defining what it means?
 
The right to keep and bear could be limited to one gun per household, even a specific type or model, and it would still fall squarely within the constitutional mandate (including "shall not be infringed") had that been the way the SCOTUS interpreted it, or if it chooses to in the future.
 
Arguments from either side based upon the Constitution are purely legal and not at all sound in any other context--in fact I'd argue they're quite feeble--particularly as validation of the principle being argued. The law has never made something right or wrong, and laws have not all that infrequently gotten it backwards.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2016, 05:18AM »

However, neither course of action is likely to have any significant impact.  We need to address the culture of violence we have built.

There it is!
 
Yeah, gun control laws (or the lack thereof) have little effect on actual violence. What's so dramatically decreased violence over recent human history is the fact that we're a social species adapting to population density. Violent cultures are unstable. That unfortunately works when there aren't too few or too many people (too few probably because everyone knows everyone and violence dramatically strains social ties, too many probably because resources are stretched thinner and we have to become more cooperative), but we've moved through the range for which it can be tolerated and we're adapting accordingly. What was perfectly acceptable violence 100 years ago is not only unacceptable today, but in most cases will get you a quick ride to jail with a friendly police officer.
 
People confuse violence for guns. Gun violence isn't a technology issue though, it's a social issue as Tim points out.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
harrison.t.reed
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colorado
Joined: Apr 5, 2007
Posts: 2698
"Spartan Brass Band!"


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2016, 05:23AM »


Are you suggesting "the right to keep and bear arms" is unambiguous (for starters)? that the congress and SCOTUS don't have any significant say in defining what it means?
 
The right to keep and bear could be limited to one gun per household and it would still fall squarely within the constitutional mandate (including "shall not be infringed") had that been the way the SCOTUS interpreted it, or if it chooses to in the future.
 
Arguments from either side based upon the Constitution are purely legal and not at all sound in any other context, particularly validation of the principle being argued (the law has never made something right or wrong, and laws have not all that infrequently gotten it backwards).

It was written during a time when people had just won a war initially using their own rifles kept at home. This is not something we can say we are ignorant of.

It's ambiguity inclusiveness is meant to prevent people from limiting it, not to provide grounds to create provisos within it. "One gun per household" does infringe individuals' rights to bear arms. A household is not an individual. You have the right bear arms, period. I'll agree that based on what "Arms" were then, this might be better changed to "small arms" today, to keep in the spirit of the founders' intentions. I doubt "arms" meant 24lb cannons and heavy military hardware back then any more than "small arms" means a 5 megaton nuclear weapon today.

I personally think that pistols are questionable outside of backpacking trips (a 10mm Glock is advisable to have in Alaska's back country), and I do not own any, but I would never actually vote to restrict them -- the Constitution is clear. Rifles are extremely useful tools and marksmanship is a rewarding pursuit. Owning a rifle was probably what the founding fathers were after, but they intentionally left it as an inclusive satement.

I also agree with Tim. America needs a culture change. The civilian marksmanship program, if fully funded and promoted, would do wonders for this. Any good hobby would. Our culture has moved away from being outdoorsy and neighborly.  We can get back to real American values though, with a little national pride.
Logged

"My technique is as good as Initial D"
T-396A - Griego 1C
88HTCL - Griego 1C
36H - DE XT105, C+, D Alto Shank
3B/F Silversonic - Griego 1A ss
pBone (with Yellow bell for bright tone)
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2016, 05:30AM »



I also agree with Tim. America needs a culture change. The civilian marksmanship program, if fully funded and promoted, would do wonders for this. Any good hobby would. Our culture has moved away from being outdoorsy and neighborly.  We can get back to real American values though, with a little national pride.

I am not sure how to do that culture change. 
A civilian marksmanship program might reduce the tendency to see guns only as weapons (for offense or defense.)  But it doesn't address violence per se. 

The current emphasis on concealed carry and gun use for defense is clearly counterproductive in the cultural sense. 

We could start by eliminating the death penalty.  It has little effect on crime, but legitimizes killing as acceptable. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2016, 05:33AM »

It was written during a time when people had just won a war initially using their own rifles kept at home. This is not something we can say we are ignorant of.
 
It's ambiguity is meant to prevent people from limiting it, not to provide grounds to create provisos within it. You have the right bear arms, period. I'll agree that based on what "Arms" were then, this might be better changed to "small arms" today, to keep in the spirit of the founders' intentions. I doubt "arms" meant 24lb cannons back then any more than "small arms" means a 5 megaton nuclear weapon today.
That's opinion--one the SCOTUS isn't bound by in any way shape or form. What I posted is how it actually works. It's simply a fact that if the SCOTUS had interpreted "keep and bear arms" to mean one gun per household that would be the protected right, and if the SCOTUS interprets it that way in the future it will then be the protected right. That's the way it works. That's a feeble basis to validate/justify keeping and bearing in general (as I posted, law is an inherently feeble basis in that regard anyway), much less on any larger scale.
 
I also agree with Tim. America needs a culture change. The civilian marksmanship program, if fully funded and promoted, would do wonders for this. Any good hobby would. Our culture has moved away from being outdoorsy and neighborly.  We can get back to real American values though, with a little national pride.
My own experience doesn't match that description. I don't think we've changed a whole lot over the lifespan of the US thus far. We're less violent, but not by a whole helluva lot in that short a time span (significantly, yes, but I wouldn't say dramatically). I also agree with Tim that the issue is violence, not guns--a social matter rather than one of technology--and that eliminating capital punishment might be a significant step in further diminishing violence (and it's absolutely necessary in order to claim that we're a civilized society in any sound or even modern sense, in my opinion).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2016, 05:47AM »

I know that phrase drives you nuts.  That's why I repeated it.
Not at all. It just shows your level of delusion in believing you have much of a choice in the matter.

Texas carry requires a license, or "permission", to exercise your constitutional right.  Arizona, and many other states as well, require no license for open or concealed carry.  It is far more likely that a person in one of these "constitutional carry" states would be armed and, therefore, able to "not become a victim." 
And per that delusion, the thought that we are safer when more people carry for protection - especially when those people have no regulation, no training, no nothing. Sorry, unless you're in an active war zone, keeping a gun around for self defensive is more likely to hurt yourself or others unintentionally or accidentally than help in a deadly situation.
Logged
harrison.t.reed
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colorado
Joined: Apr 5, 2007
Posts: 2698
"Spartan Brass Band!"


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2016, 06:31AM »

This forum is so blue and we got Baron Von Bone pushing his post count over 17000 by playing both sides of the fence. I gotta just learn to keep my trap shut.

Constitution: "you may keep and bear arms"

Boy Blue: "no, but what had happened was..."

Last post for me here. Out.
Logged

"My technique is as good as Initial D"
T-396A - Griego 1C
88HTCL - Griego 1C
36H - DE XT105, C+, D Alto Shank
3B/F Silversonic - Griego 1A ss
pBone (with Yellow bell for bright tone)
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2016, 06:52AM »

Sorry, unless you're in an active war zone, keeping a gun around for self defensive is more likely to hurt yourself or others unintentionally or accidentally than help in a deadly situation.

Only if you're kind of incompetent. Guns aren't terribly complicated machines to use--especially revolvers, which are probably what most defensive handgun buyers should be getting.
 
No need to overstate your argument, and it just undermines it/your credibility when you do.
 
Statistics are for populations, not individuals. Statistical arguments are therefore valid for populations but not so much for individuals. IOW you can't reasonably extrapolate from population stats to individual behaviors because the stats are an aggregate and individuals are ... well, individual.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2016, 06:54AM »

This forum is so blue. I gotta just learn to keep my trap shut.
 
Constitution: "you may keep and bear arms"
 
Boy Blue: "no, but what had happened was..."
 
Last post for me here. Out.

Best not to whine when others disagree with you--worse to whine and throw a tantrum of presumptions. Makes your position appear quite fragile. It indicates you haven't done your basic homework--haven't genuinely vetted your own position (at least asking obvious questions if not taking the basic responsibility of genuinely challenging your own position) and haven't much tolerance for doing so (that's intellectual cowardice), which in turn indicates that your position is likely based upon in-group agreement and slogans and such rather than any real research or responsible or even just genuine consideration.
 
Speaking of credibility ...
 
But yeah, based upon that behavior you're basically out whether you continue to "participate" or not. You've pretty seriously damaged your credibility there by demonstrating a very clear inability to handle disagreement.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2016, 08:10AM »

. Sorry, unless you're in an active war zone, keeping a gun around for self defensive is more likely to hurt yourself or others unintentionally or accidentally than help in a deadly situation.

Of course that's true.  How could it be not?  However much we perceive we are in danger, we live in the safest times (so far) in history.  So where the chances of being in a deadly situation are so low, obviously the chances of getting hurt otherwise will be higher.  BUT that doesn't mean they are high enough to be significant, given reasonable care.  And having a gun available, in that unlikely deadly situation, will improvement the chances of survival.  You can't deny that either, though it isn't foolproof.

As I see it, the real problem is different.  The real problem is that in advocating self defensive use, you may become part of reinforcing a culture of violence.  I don't know what the factors are that maintain that culture.  Perhaps some of it is just the short history of the US compared to other countries, some of it our glorification of action movies, some of it our insistence on the death penalty, some of it the quickness with which we use military force.  It is not impossible that a large component is the fact that most children are spanked - or perhaps more relevant, that most people believe in spanking. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2016, 09:25AM »

Statistics are for populations, not individuals. Statistical arguments are therefore valid for populations but not so much for individuals. IOW you can't reasonably extrapolate from population stats to individual behaviors because the stats are an aggregate and individuals are ... well, individual.

Nope.

#1 Individuals have poor self assessment. Most people say they are above average intelligence.

#2 Once you get into a defensive situation with at least one other person, it is not longer a question of individual ability. Not only is it then a comparison of you vs another person, there could be other unknown people involved as well. And as Bruce's story provides a wonderful example of with: "Several people were shot and injured, including a man authorities initially described as another suspect because he was present and armed", once you pull a gun in a firefight it can be difficult for others to tell which side you are on.

Nice try though.




And having a gun available, in that unlikely deadly situation, will improvement the chances of survival.  You can't deny that either, though it isn't foolproof.
You seem to see the issue with your own point. It isn't foolproof. And pulling a gun in that unlikely deadly situation also suddenly makes you much more of a target. There's a lot of "what if's" of course, but the reality is many more gun owners are shot and killed accidentally by their own family and weapons than shoot and kill others in a defensive situation.


The real problem is that in advocating self defensive use, you may become part of reinforcing a culture of violence.
 
In some regard I can see your point, and in some regard it is valid. There was a woman in the parking lot of home depot a while back who saw shoplifters running from the store, loading up their vehicle, and driving off. She pulled out her firearm and shot out the tires, and was promptly charged with reckless discharge of a gun. 

In most cases where people want to pull a gun, the situation is unpleasant but not deadly. For example, someone stealing something. A mugging. A shoplifting. A burglary. Most are not life threatening, even in armed robbery situations. But pulling out a gun can quickly make it so.

And in most unpleasant situations, even attempting to use a gun as punishment is far in excess of what society has deemed an appropriate consequence. A few years in jail is quite a different process than capital punishment. So like the woman in the parking lot, suddenly there are potentially life ending measures employed for simply witnessing someone stealing a few thousand dollars worth of merchandise from a store that can readily afford it.

It doesn't just reinforce the culture of violence, it grows it. It says that not only is violence the best answer to violence, but that we should deploy violence for ourselves and even on behalf of total strangers. Present in an armed robbery situation in a convenience store? Then you should pull your gun! When the far safer course is to just hide and hand over the money and file a report after.

A war vet was present is one of the mass shootings not long ago. Armed as well. His training told him to hide which he did, and afterwards the  media found out, and the public response was incredibly critical towards him saying he should have engaged regardless of the danger or risk.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2016, 09:26AM »

Of course that's true.  How could it be not?  However much we perceive we are in danger, we live in the safest times (so far) in history.  So where the chances of being in a deadly situation are so low, obviously the chances of getting hurt otherwise will be higher.  BUT that doesn't mean they are high enough to be significant, given reasonable care.  And having a gun available, in that unlikely deadly situation, will improvement the chances of survival.  You can't deny that either, though it isn't foolproof.
I'd take that a step further and call it a poor reading/over-extrapolation of the stats, but I don't disagree with you either.
 
As I see it, the real problem is different.  The real problem is that in advocating self defensive use, you may become part of reinforcing a culture of violence.  I don't know what the factors are that maintain that culture.  Perhaps some of it is just the short history of the US compared to other countries, some of it our glorification of action movies, some of it our insistence on the death penalty, some of it the quickness with which we use military force.  It is not impossible that a large component is the fact that most children are spanked - or perhaps more relevant, that most people believe in spanking.
It always strikes me (i.e. it's noteworthy) that our rating system tolerates all sorts of nasty violence, but not something so offensive or awkward as a female breast (or more than one or for some amount of time or whatever buelshite standard the MPAA uses that rates nudity and sexuality as more of an issue than even pretty intense violence).
 
The most notable recent human development as far as change within us as individuals may well be how much less violent we've become in relatively recent history. What was perfectly acceptable violent behavior even a century ago in some cases is not only no longer acceptable, but criminal (I may have just written about this yesterday on this forum, but it may have been on another, so my apologies if it's redundant). It's interesting if idle to speculate as to how that progression will go over time--if there'll be a time when machine/drone type violence will seem okay or at least fly under the radar while real, personal violence is completely abhorrent ... etc.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: