Non-IT News Thread
-
@dafyre said:
But then we're back to protecting myself from the robber who wants to steal my car. He may just want to steal my car, but the moment he pulls out a weapon is the moment that I assume he intends me harm and will defend myself judiciously (weapon or not).
You are using anecdotes to dispute stats. It doesn't work. The stats say allowing guns puts everyone at risk. Plain and simple. If you feel that stats are wrong, dispute the stats. Pointing out anecdotes that don't even quite dispute the facts doesn't change the bottom line. The availability of guns, the use of them, having them in public puts people at risk.
You see "robber with a gun." I see "person who carries a gun using it to rob me." I see the legal gun carrying permit holding guy and the robber the same - both are carrying a weapon to make them feel safe while making others feel threatened. One has decided to use it to rob me, the other may or may not do the same when the opportunity presents itself. Both are gun carrying and I can't tell which is which because "normal" people are allowed to go out armed like criminals.
-
-
Are you saying that I'm letting myself be robbed by not carrying a weapon?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
By and large, I agree with you on vigilantism, but offering a helping hand, blade or bullet to a fellow citizen in harm's way does not make you a vigilante.
It does if you left the house with a gun for that intent. That's exactly what it is.
What about somebody that leaves their house like they do with their cell phone? Where I go, it goes. My gun locked in the glovebox of my car does me no good if I don't have access to it when I'm being robbed trying to get back into my car.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That makes no sense.
If standing that and letting myself get robbed makes no sense... then why does carrying a gun not make sense?
Are you saying that I'm letting myself be robbed by not carrying a weapon?
Not necessarily, but not very many people are well equipped to go head to head against some one who has a weapon of any kind.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That makes no sense.
If standing that and letting myself get robbed makes no sense... then why does carrying a gun not make sense?Are you saying that I'm letting myself be robbed by not carrying a weapon?
Not necessarily, but not very many people are well equipped to go head to head against some one who has a weapon of any kind.Problems with where you are going include the desire to have a confrontation rather than letting them steal something. Even if I had a gun I'm not going to use it to defend objects. That's ridiculous. Legal, maybe, but not wise. Not wise for anyone. And the assumption that you are going to be robbed by armed people. The whole point of not allowing guns in public is to reduce the chances of this happening at all.
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
Better to build a fence on top of the hill than a hospital beneath it.
-
@dafyre said:
What about somebody that leaves their house like they do with their cell phone? Where I go, it goes. My gun locked in the glovebox of my car does me no good if I don't have access to it when I'm being robbed trying to get back into my car.
You seem very intent on being robbed at gun point. Are you really worried about this?
And again, you can't keep repeating anecdotes that don't support the stats (or otherwise.) Is there a situation where carrying a gun might wind up with a better outcome than not for an individual anecdote? Of course. There is also a case for doing all kinds of seemingly horrible things that will have good potential outcomes in very specific cases. Shooting randomly into a crowd could hit someone that was going to do real harm. But chances are, you'll just hit someone innocent.
The problem with carrying guns is that, on average, more people and more innocent people get shot. That it can turn out good is just one scenario. That it can turn out badly is another and, as the stats show, the more likely one.
-
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
If he is posing for a picture with a loaded gun, then he's an idiot.
This is where you lose me - what? so you should only pose for a picture while holding a non loaded weapon? uhhhhh I don't get it.
Why do you need a loaded gun to take a picture? Admittedly, maybe idiot was too strong of a word, but it makes my point. Alas, we can only see so much in a picture, and infer many things that are not there.
If I'm out and about with my weapon and it's loaded, would you expect me to say.. wooo wait a min while I unload my weapon before you take a picture - hell no I wouldn't do that. But then again I wouldn't be out in public like this nutters anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You seem very intent on being robbed at gun point. Are you really worried about this?
No, he is using a single example and not randomly running all over the place trying to word his opponent to death in the conversation as you are.
@scottalanmiller said:
The problem with carrying guns is that, on average, more people and more innocent people get shot. That it can turn out good is just one scenario. That it can turn out badly is another and, as the stats show, the more likely one.
The problem with alcohol is that, on average, more people and more innocent people get killed by drunk drivers. That it can turn out good is just one scenario. That it can turn out badly is another and, as the stats show, the more likely one.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Problems with where you are going include the desire to have a confrontation rather than letting them steal something. Even if I had a gun I'm not going to use it to defend objects. That's ridiculous. Legal, maybe, but not wise. Not wise for anyone. And the assumption that you are going to be robbed by armed people. The whole point of not allowing guns in public is to reduce the chances of this happening at all.
I'm not defending objects. The moment they pull out a wepon, or the moment I am surrounded by more than one, is the moment it became self defense. How is somebody who isn't armed going to rob me?
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them? And then I am left bringing fists to a gun fight? Remember how well that worked out for the police in France? Sure, I could run, but you gotta remember my mindset. If I see a weapon, I assume it is going to be used... That is just the way I was brought up.
Better to build a fence on top of the hill than a hospital beneath it.
I agree. Even the best fence only needs one weak link before it is no longer a fence.
-
@Dashrender said:
If I'm out and about with my weapon and it's loaded, would you expect me to say.. wooo wait a min while I unload my weapon before you take a picture - hell no I wouldn't do that. But then again I wouldn't be out in public like this nutters anyway.
If you were out with your weapon would it be slung across your front at the ready at all times? Yes, they posed for a picture. But there is plenty of evidence from passive long recordings showing that most of these extremists carry that way intentionally at all times.
The problem with these extremists is that they practice bad firearm handling. Period.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You seem very intent on being robbed at gun point. Are you really worried about this?
No, he is using a single example and not randomly running all over the place trying to word his opponent to death in the conversation as you are.
A single example that doesn't support the conversation, however. It's an anecdote that the stats suggest is self-creating and is only viewed after the negative affects (or most) of the guns are removed and only the positive potential use case remains.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
A single example that doesn't support the conversation, however. It's an anecdote that the stats suggest is self-creating and is only viewed after the negative affects (or most) of the guns are removed and only the positive potential use case remains.
I wasn't supporting the conversation, I was highlighting your self creating stats.
-
@dafyre said:
I'm not defending objects. The moment they pull out a wepon, or the moment I am surrounded by more than one, is the moment it became self defense. How is somebody who isn't armed going to rob me?
I'm not saying robbers would not be armed. But they might not be armed with guns. People are robbed in other ways normally, guns are not the normal means. It's not like the US is the only country with robberies.
You can always leave. When you stand to attack people robbing you it becomes object defense. If someone want to take my car with a gun, I'm just going to let them.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I wasn't supporting the conversation, I was highlighting your self creating stats.
How are my stats self creating?
-
@dafyre said:
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them?
Many, yes. That's the biggest advantage. Every person carrying a gun legally makes it easier for a criminal to do so too.
-
@dafyre said:
And then I am left bringing fists to a gun fight?
You are basing this discussion around there being a fight. The goal is to reduce the number of fights in total and to reduce the level of the fights that remain. You are assuming that there will be fights and that the criminals will have guns. Neither of those things are common as it is and the reason to stop people having guns is to reduce them both.
-
@dafyre said:
Remember how well that worked out for the police in France?
What do you mean? Do the French have a more dangerous record for being shot than American police? I'm not aware of this stat. What is the basis of it, French police are unarmed and regularly shot by criminals?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm not saying robbers would not be armed. But they might not be armed with guns. People are robbed in other ways normally, guns are not the normal means. It's not like the US is the only country with robberies.
True, true. But it is still that mentality that I grew up with. If a weapon comes out, whoever brought it out is intent on using it.
You can always leave.
True. And I was raised to walk away from a fight if the other person would let me... But I refer to my last sentence. If a weapon comes out they are going to use it.
When you stand to attack people robbing you it becomes object defense. If someone want to take my car with a gun, I'm just going to let them.
Arguably, this is true. What if your wife and/ or kids were in the car? (I ask this because more often than not, my wife and kid are with me when in town). If I am alone, and I feel like they really would just take the car and go, fine, they can have it. But that isn't likely to happen in my mind.
-
@dafyre said:
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them? And then I am left bringing fists to a gun fight? Remember how well that worked out for the police in France? Sure, I could run, but you gotta remember my mindset. If I see a weapon, I assume it is going to be used... That is just the way I was brought up.
Actually, it will, if all of the existing guns are removed. Japan has extrreme gun control laws. Guns are extremely rare there. Thus there are also fewer random criminals with guns. Does it stop organized crime from obtaining guns in Japan? No, it barely even slows them down.
But the random criminal is not going to have a gun.
