Straight Dope Message Board

[Fear Itself]

In your opinion, what is the ratio of positive gun stories to stupid or tragic stories? No one is suggesting that guns are never used in a justified case of self defense, but that the societal cost of widespread gun ownership overwhelms the benefits. 251

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bone

Those types of stories are to illustrate instances when criminals are disarmed and their own gun used against them. In my anecdotal experience, I find this happens much more than when criminals are able to disarm their victims and use the victim gun against them. The latter is a common refrain among gun control supporters so I include those types of stories as a counter.

The problem is that they're not a counter. Gun control advocates are saying, "See? If guns were harder to obtain, people would be safer on balance." Your stories make exactly the same point. 252

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

The problem is that they're not a counter. Gun control advocates are saying, "See? If guns were harder to obtain, people would be safer on balance." Your stories make exactly the same point.

You can interpret it that way, but I don't. The specific idea of including the types of stories you reference (attacker losing gun) is to counter the idea that the attacker will just take away a victim gun.

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

In your opinion, what is the ratio of positive gun stories to stupid or tragic stories? No one is suggesting that guns are never used in a justified case of self defense, but that the societal cost of widespread gun ownership overwhelms the benefits.

I wouldn't hazzard a guess. Feel free to start a thread to discuss it!

***

In other news, Homeowner shoots, kills intruder in Pamlico County

The home invasion call came in at 3:04 a.m. and sheriff's deputies responded. The sheriff said three people broke into the home; there were five people inside at the time.

Deputies said the homeowner shot and killed one of the intruders. The sheriff's office has not released the identities of the deceased man or the other suspects.

With 3 assailants, larger magazines are a plus. 253

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bone

You can interpret it that way, but I don't. The specific idea of including the types of stories you reference (attacker losing gun) is to counter the idea that the attacker will just take away a victim gun.

Huh. As someone more sympathetic to gun control than you, it doesn't work at all to counter that idea--showing that if you have a gun, your opponent can sometimes take it from you makes guns look less, not more, safe. What does work to counter it is times when the gun is *not* taken away from a defending gun owner. Your stories in which assailants are shot or otherwise driven off by gun owners work to counter the "own a gun and it'll get snatched from you" narrative. 254

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

...raised in impoverished, high-crime neighborhood inadequately protected by often-racist cops, criminals who face a hard time finding opportunities due to deeply-entrenched institutional racism

So what's your point? That because they were raised in conditions that contributed to their becoming vicious criminals the correct and moral thing to do is deliberately disarm ourselves and willingly present ourselves as defenseless victims to whatever evil skullduggery they have in mind?

I swear, I will never understand the liberal mind if I live to be a thousand years old. 255

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I swear, I will never understand the liberal mind if I live to be a thousand years old.

Plenty of time. You don't sound a day over 800. 256

[Starving Artist]

If you knew how truly sad and unhappy I am about the death of Scott Weiland you wouldn't be saying such things. 257

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

So what's your point? That because they were raised in conditions that contributed to their becoming vicious criminals the correct and moral thing to do is deliberately disarm ourselves and willingly present ourselves as defenseless victims to whatever evil skullduggery they have in mind?

I swear, I will never understand the liberal mind if I live to be a thousand years old.

Not to speak for LHOD here, but... I think that type of stuff is important, not because we should forgive someone for committing a violent crime, or let them go free just because they had a bad childhood, but because it informs public policy choices. So the west side of Peoria has been getting more violent in the past few years... how should we proceed? More cops? Curfews? Or greater funding for public schools and after-school programs to try to keep kids out of gangs?

And there certainly are cases where for instance a teenager has committed a first violent crime, and is not yet hardened into a lifetime path of violence, when understanding that child's life up to that point helps us decide whether society as a whole is better off if we treat that child as a troubled youth or a violent thug.

Which is NOT to say that we just always get all touchy-feely and refuse to ever lock anyone up or ever try a minor as an adult... but we certainly shouldn't always react with extreme prejudice. 258

[Starving Artist]

I agree with everything you just said. But LHoD seems to object to people using guns to defend themselves because criminals aren't responsible for the fact they grew up to be criminals, and that makes no sense whatever. 259

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I agree with everything you just said. But LHoD seems to object to people using guns to defend themselves because criminals aren't responsible for the fact they grew up to be criminals, and that makes no sense whatever.

There are literally trillions of ways you could misrepresent what I said and have it make no sense. Congratulations, I guess, for finding one of them?

You want to lay blame. You want to figure out who's righteous and who's guilty.

I want the violence to stop.

Nothing in what I said comes close to condoning violence. But if we want violence to stop, we need to look at why it's happening. Saying "BAD GUYS BAD" doesn't get us any closer to understanding why it's happening.

You say you don't understand the liberal mindset. That may be the Captain Obvious statement of the decade. Sadly, I do understand the conservative mindset (at least, the one you represent): it'd rather lay blame than solve the problem. 260

[Scumpup]

You want the violence to stop. How wonderful for you. I want it to stop, too. However, I must insist that that happen through criminals renouncing their criminal ways. 261

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

You want the violence to stop. How wonderful for you. I want it to stop, too. However, I must insist that that happen through criminals renouncing their criminal ways.

And their spokesman won't even come to the bargaining table! 262

[Bone]

In other news, Man shot during altercation with truck driver who had just towed his car

A 35-year-old man from Milwaukee was shot just before 1 a.m. near 1st and Lincoln during an altercation with a tow truck driver that had just towed his vehicle. The driver of the tow truck realized he was being followed and drove to the police station where the altercation occurred.

The victim was taken to a hospital for treatment of a non-life threatening injury.

The shooter (tow truck driver), a 27-year-old man also from Milwaukee, remained on scene and is cooperating with police.

I wonder if the driver called the police on his way there. 263

[stillownedbysetters]

And just when you felt that too few guns were getting into too few American hands, along comes the answer to your prayers - a home shopping channel for guns. Gun TV will premiere in 2016.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/home-shopping-network-for-guns-launching-next-month/ar-AAfZyMN?li=BBnbfcL 264

[thelurkinghorror]

Originally Posted by stillownedbysetters

And just when you felt that too few guns were getting into too few American hands, along comes the answer to your prayers - a home shopping channel for guns. Gun TV will premiere in 2016.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/home-shopping-network-for-guns-launching-next-month/ar-AAfZyMN?li=BBnbfcL

"My gut reaction is that it's the last thing that we need." The last time we let someone dictate policy based on their gut, we got George W. Bush, lady. 265

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

You want the violence to stop. How wonderful for you. I want it to stop, too. However, I must insist that that happen through criminals renouncing their criminal ways.

I literally have no idea what you are saying. 266

[Scumpup]

I am saying that criminals must change their ways if the violence is to end, not honest citizens who own guns. 267

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

I am saying that criminals must change their ways if the violence is to end, not honest citizens who own guns.

Do you mean this on a practical level or a theoretical level? I mean, clearly if I pressed a magic button and every gun in the US vanished, then there would be no more gun violence without criminals changing their ways.

And does "old criminals die off and the next generation contains far fewer criminals due to vastly better public schools and less poverty" count as "criminals must change their ways"?


I guess I'm puzzled where your stated position actually fits in when it comes to practical proposals and ideas. 268

[Scumpup]

In practical terms, there is an endless supply of criminals. Honest citizens surrendering their most effective means of defense will neither eliminate criminals nor gentle them. Eliminate weapons and all you do is clear the way for the physically strong or the numerous to do what they wish to their chosen victims. Remember, there were murderers, rapists, and robbers long before there were guns. 269

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

I am saying that criminals must change their ways if the violence is to end, not honest citizens who own guns.

I want laws that force criminals to change their ways. Do you? 270

[Scumpup]

Obviously, we alrwady have such. Now you tell me, if you force me to turn in my dad's .38 or one of my old service pistols, how will that stop the violence? 271

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Obviously, we alrwady have such. Now you tell me, if you force me to turn in my dad's .38 or one of my old service pistols, how will that stop the violence?

Stronger background checks do not lead to confiscation. 272

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

There are literally trillions of ways you could misrepresent what I said and have it make no sense. Congratulations, I guess, for finding one of them?

Finding one? It was not only obvious but the only conclusion I can see that anyone can draw. You, as an anti-gun proponent, come into a thread whose purpose is to highlight incidents where gun ownership has allowed people to fend off people who would otherwise have raped, robbed, beaten, strangled, tortured and/or killed someone and start going on about how it isn't the fault of criminals that they're the way they are, it's the fault of the racist society they grew up in. And seeing that you advocate the elimination or limited use of guns and are presumably arguing in their behalf, what other conclusion is there to draw other than you think people should be willing to give up (or be denied) the guns they use to defend themselves from criminals because it isn't the criminals' fault.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

You want to lay blame. You want to figure out who's righteous and who's guilty.

Not sure what this means. Certainly I've laid the blame for a fair amount of criminality in the past on certain things liberals have done that I think exacerbates it, but in this thread I'm merely advocating that people should be free to own and use guns to protect themselves.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I want the violence to stop.

You may find this hard to believe but I do too. The difference between us appears to be that I want it to stop coming from those who commit it rather than those who use it to defend themselves against others who were violent (or threatening) first. In other words my solution to ending violence doesn't involve standing there helplessly with my hands at my side while someone pounds my face until they either get what they want or grow tired and move on. If the violence is going to stop, doesn't it make sense that the guy who initiates it should be the one whose behavior gets stopped, rather than that of the of person defending him/herself from it?

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

in what I said comes close to condoning violence. But if we want violence to stop, we need to look at why it's happening. Saying "BAD GUYS BAD" doesn't get us any closer to understanding why it's happening.

I've never said you condone violence. On the contrary it appears to me you object to the use of violence even against someone who's being violent to you first. I've also never said "BAD GUYS BAD" nor used that as an answer to violence. But be that as it may you're really talking about two different things here. Yes, societal changes have to occur in order to address the conditions that lead to people becoming criminals. But once they've already become criminals and are threatening or attacking you, that's a completely different kettle of fish and has to be dealt with in a different way.

So fine, work to try to eliminate the societal conditions that lead to criminality, but be realistic and acknowledge that once someone crosses the line into threatening or trying to commit violence against someone else then all bets are off and the innocent person has to the right to defend him/herself with violence in order to put a stop to the threat.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

say you don't understand the liberal mindset. That may be the Captain Obvious statement of the decade. Sadly, I do understand the conservative mindset (at least, the one you represent): it'd rather lay blame than solve the problem.

Part of solving a problem lies in assessing blame for what's causing it. I'm fine with and actually support solving the problems that lead to crime. But once crime is occurring it's time to throw all that out the window and defend yourself. Otherwise you and your family may no longer be around to try to achieve any more societal crime fighting. 273

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Stronger background checks do not lead to confiscation.

The two San Bernardino shooters passed all sorts of background checks, including the vetting of the woman who immigrated from Pakistan, and all their weapons were purchased legally.

Plus many on the side of stronger background checks are really trying to work toward eventual bannination. And we all know it. Once you start letting the government decide the terms under which people are allowed to purchase guns you also put the power in its hands to start coming up with ways to deny people the ability to do so. If people on the left were not so strongly anti-gun and had had a more sincere desire all along to regulate gun ownership along the same lines as automobile ownership and driver's licenses there would have been much less pushback from the pro-gun side. But just like we know Obamacare is a foot in the door to what many hope will eventually be single-payer health care, government gun regulation is a foot in the door to eventual elimination...and of course the only ones that will be eliminated are those belonging to those who feel compelled to follow the law. So guess who winds up with all the guns then? 274

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

The two San Bernardino shooters passed all sorts of background checks, including the vetting of the woman who immigrated from Pakistan, and all their weapons were purchased legally.

The rifles were purchased legally, but not by the terrorists.. That is why we need stronger background checks, so terrorists cannot buy guns legally.

Plus many on the side of stronger background checks are really trying to work toward eventual bannination...

Blah, blah blah. What tiresome conspiracy theories. "Gundamentalists want easy access to guns so they can overthrow the government." See? I can play too! 275

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

You want the violence to stop. How wonderful for you. I want it to stop, too. However, I must insist that that happen through criminals renouncing their criminal ways.

Exactly. You and Starving Artist don't actually want the violence to stop. You want it to stop in a particular way that smacks of magical thinking.

Me, I want it to stop, and I'm willing to look at why people are making the violent choices they're making, and whether there's something we can do to influence those choices more effectively than what we're doing now. I don't give a crap whether the criminals feel all bad and repentant and shit, whether they don sackcloth or praise Jesus or whatever. I want it to stop, full stop.

That's the difference. You want righteousness. I don't. 276

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Part of solving a problem lies in assessing blame for what's causing it. I'm fine with and actually support solving the problems that lead to crime. But once crime is occurring it's time to throw all that out the window and defend yourself. Otherwise you and your family may no longer be around to try to achieve any more societal crime fighting.

On second thought, I should have read further. I appreciate your acknowledgment that solving underlying social ills is critical (although we absolutely disagree on the social ills that need remedying--I think there's a centuries-old crisis of violence in white culture, you don't).

In that vein, let me point out that I have *never*, here or elsewhere, suggested that the use of lethal force in self-defense against the threat of lethal force is wrong. I have no problem with someone who shoots a probably-lethal attacker. We might quibble on some details, but the underlying principle, that you can shoot your attacker if you need to in order to survive, is something we agree on. So don't project that caricature onto me. 277

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Exactly. You and Starving Artist don't actually want the violence to stop. You want it to stop in a particular way that smacks of magical thinking.

Me, I want it to stop, and I'm willing to look at why people are making the violent choices they're making, and whether there's something we can do to influence those choices more effectively than what we're doing now. I don't give a crap whether the criminals feel all bad and repentant and shit, whether they don sackcloth or praise Jesus or whatever. I want it to stop, full stop.

That's the difference. You want righteousness. I don't.

Frankly, I' m not sure what you want. Your posts are a melange of glitter, wishful thinking, and plain old bullshit. At this point, I don't even disagree with you because your position doesn't make enough sense for me to do that. 278

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Frankly, I' m not sure what you want. Your posts are a melange of glitter, wishful thinking, and plain old bullshit. At this point, I don't even disagree with you because your position doesn't make enough sense for me to do that.

279

[Common Tater]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

I am saying that criminals must change their ways if the violence is to end, not honest citizens who own guns.

The weltanschauung of true believers doesn't allow for that kind of thinking. At all. There is no distinction to be made, there are no good guys. You can catch this in the verbiage used in news stories once you know what to look for, usually almost content free, third person twice removed kind of stuff aka "mistakes were made" language. Language matters, the narrative.

The perpetrator of an armed robbery, for example, will often be described as "the victim" if he is shot in the course of the crime. 280

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Common Tater

The weltanschauung of true believers doesn't allow for that kind of thinking.

Heh--I misread you at first to say that it doesn't allow for anything but that kind of thinking. 281

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Common Tater

The perpetrator of an armed robbery, for example, will often be described as "the victim" if he is shot in the course of the crime.

You do realize that it is possible for someone to be the perpetrator of one crime and the victim of another crime? Neither one precludes the other. 282

[PatrickLondon]

Tis the season...

A Christmas card from Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore 283

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

You do realize that it is possible for someone to be the perpetrator of one crime and the victim of another crime? Neither one precludes the other.

Sure. Shitbags victimize each other pretty routinely. On the other hand, if little Billy decides to rob the local Shop n' Bag and the guy behind the counter shoots Billy, the only thing Billy is the victim of is his own criminality. 284

[Bone]

Originally Posted by PatrickLondon

Tis the season...

A Christmas card from Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore

Do you consider this positive news? 285

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Sure. Shitbags victimize each other pretty routinely. On the other hand, if little Billy decides to rob the local Shop n' Bag and the guy behind the counter shoots Billy, the only thing Billy is the victim of is his own criminality.

If Billy gets shot in the back as he leaves, whatever your ugly and simplistic ideology proclaims, you're factually incorrect. 286

[Starving Artist]

If Billy gets shot in the back it eliminates the likelihood that he will rob and maybe kill someone in the future. I'd hate to have it on my conscience that a robber I chose to let escape went on to kill someone else in a subsequent robbery. 287

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

If Billy gets shot in the back as he leaves, whatever your ugly and simplistic ideology proclaims, you're factually incorrect.

Billy wouldn't have been shot at all if he hadn't tried his hand at robbing, would he? That dirty, back-shooting varmint of a shopkeeper didn't seek Billy out, did he? Billy set the chain of events in motion. What is it with you and this need to minimize the responsibility shitbags bear for their acts, anyway? 288

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

If Billy gets shot in the back it eliminates the likelihood that he will rob and maybe kill someone in the future. I'd hate to have it on my conscience that a robber I chose to let escape went on to kill someone else in a subsequent robbery.

That is so fucked up. You can justify any violent murder if you pretend to be able to see into the future. "I did society a favor, he might grow up to be a terrorist!" You are not the judge, jury or executioner. Your vigilantism is more dangerous than a small time burglar any day, because it says you have no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law. Your action is no less criminal than that of the robber you pretend to abhor. 289

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Billy wouldn't have been shot at all if he hadn't tried his hand at robbing, would he? That dirty, back-shooting varmint of a shopkeeper didn't seek Billy out, did he? Billy set the chain of events in motion. What is it with you and this need to minimize the responsibility shitbags bear for their acts, anyway?

You're behaving in almost exactly the non-Bricker mode here, unwilling or unable to separate what's legally okay from what's morally okay.

But set aside your factual incorrectness about the legality of shooting a fleeing robber in the back. Look at the moral issue. Are you really unable to see how the following two statements can be simultaneously held true?

A. Billy is morally responsible for his acts robbing a store, and should face consequences for them..
B. Murder is not the appropriate consequences for these acts, and someone who murders Billy for them should face consequences for that murder.

Edit: as an addendum, I don't know why you've got that predilection for writing me PMs and calling me Princess, but it's kind of creepy. 290

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

That is so fucked up. You can justify any violent murder if you pretend to be able to see into the future. "I did society a favor, he might grow up to be a terrorist!" You are not the judge, jury or executioner. Your vigilantism is more dangerous than a small time burglar any day, because it says you have no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law. Your action is no less criminal than that of the robber you pretend to abhor.

What's fucked up is your inability to differentiate between some random murder based on perceived psychic ability vs. killing someone who's already threatened people's lives in order to obtain a paltry sum of money. 291

[Scumpup]

I didn't say it was legal for Hezekiah ( that's our shopkeeper's name) to shoot Billy in the back. I didn't say it was morally right, either. I never even had Hezekiah shoot him in the back at all. That all came from you.

You know what, though? If Billy had tried to rob Ace the meth dealer down on the corner, no matter what part of his anatomy Ace shot him in and no matter what legal penalties Ace might face for the shooting, I would still say little Billy died because he wanted to rob somebody. Billy wanting to be a big, bad, desperado led to his death. Whether the fellow who shot him is in compliance with the law is a separate issue. Hezekiah and/or Ace being wrong doesn't make Billy innocent or right. 292

[Bone]

For the record - I'm opposed to shooting people who present no threat and our current system of justice agrees with this. Sometimes threats are shot in the back, and sometimes fleeing people are still a threat. It's a case by case evaluation.

***

In other news, Mesquite man shot after attacking his grandfather

A Mesquite man was shot after he tried to attack his 81-year-old grandfather with a knife Sunday night, according to police.
Michael Ashley Holley, 34, was medically treated and arrested. He’s been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
At around 11:15 p.m., police responded to a shooting at a residence in the 1000 block of Irene Drive in Mesquite. Holley had pulled a knife and attempted to assault his grandfather, Norman Holley, police said. Norman defended himself from the attack and shot Michael.

I suspect drugs were involved in some way. 293

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

What's fucked up is your inability to differentiate between some random murder based on perceived psychic ability vs. killing someone who's already threatened people's lives in order to obtain a paltry sum of money.

You want to kill someone who hasn't killed anyone, because you think he might kill someone, someday. That is fucked up. 294

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

You want to kill someone who hasn't killed anyone, because you think he might kill someone, someday. That is fucked up.

Well, first of all I don't want to kill anybody. What I am saying is that such a shooting would be justified, for the reasons I've already explained. 295

[SeldomSeen]

This, I think belongs in the realm of positive gun news:
Meet the Gun-Loving Lifelong Member of the NRA Who Just Submitted His Resignation

Nevada state legislator, congressional candidate and gun lover John Oceguera has had enough of NRA recalcitrance.

"Our country is facing a tragic gun violence epidemic, and we cannot ignore it. Still, the NRA opposes any legislation that would help keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill, and spends millions to stop any action in Congress that could help prevent further violence," he wrote. "I cannot continue to be a member while the NRA refuses to back closing these loopholes."

May we see more responsible gun owners taking matters into their own hands WRT LaPierre and the crazies. 296

[Roderick Femm]

Thanks, I just shared that article on facebook, for the benefit of my cousin and her throwback husband. If they haven't blocked me already, this will probably do it. 297

[ChickenLegs]

Homeowner apprehends burglars:

http://katu.com/news/local/washingto...rs-at-gunpoint 298

[Bone]

In other news, Burglary suspect shot by woman in St. Louis

Police say the woman and her 19-year-old son heard an alarm sound and went to the garage, where she saw a man rummaging through a pile of bags. The woman pulled out a handgun and told the man to leave.

Police say that when the man turned toward her, she feared he was coming at her, and fired a shot.

The son and the man then fought, and the woman shot at the burglar again. He was found later in another yard.

The idea that someone breaking in is just there for stuff doesn't seem to be one to bet your life on. 299

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

You want to kill someone who hasn't killed anyone, because you think he might kill someone, someday. That is fucked up.

Even if that were true, he'd be no more than following the lead set by people from the anti-gun side. They're all about punishing gun owners for things that they might do or crimes that might be committed with guns they own(ed). 300