# Guns And Threats: A Thought Experiment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 18, 2015, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207 "2015-08-18T20:02:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/61 "2015-08-21T02:16:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is true - however in CA it [probably would be brandishing.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=417) > > PENAL CODE - PEN > PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. ) > TITLE 11. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE [403 - 420.1] ( Title 11 enacted 1872. ) > 417. > (a) (1) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon whatsoever, other than a firearm, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a deadly weapon other than a firearm in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days. > (2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel is punishable as follows: Except that doesn’t fit what \*\*Lumpy \*\*posted. Agree that California’s gun laws are retarded, though. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/62 "2015-08-21T02:24:28Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > You admittedly don’t like armed people so you make these things up ? Let’s stay away from accusations of “making things up.” Much too close to accusations of lying for this forum. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/63 "2015-08-21T02:42:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Let’s stay away from accusations of “making things up.” Much too close to accusations of lying for this forum. > > [/Moderating] If I had intended to accusing him of lying I would have called him a liar. What I accuse is making up the definition of what “brandishing” is. Having ones hand on a handgun that is both concealed and in a holster is not defined as brandishing in any state I know of, even if the holster is unsnapped and the safety of the handgun is turned off. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/64 "2015-08-21T03:41:02Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > You are saying that the NRAs position is based on either “If everybody is armed, then the insane will be deterred” or “When that spree killer shows up I’ll be able to hit him, after he kills someone”? > > That is even more narcissistic and goofy than I already allowed. > > You may be “deterred” No armed bystander, not even a police officer, can necessarily prevent a gunman from shooting people and possibly killing them. What they can do is stop the bodycount at one, or two or three instead of ten or more. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/65 "2015-08-21T03:48:45Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > OK you may give an argument for the NRAs platform of arming. That’s how you demonstrate a false dilemma, and how you win arguments. The main problem with your posts in this thread is that they are nearly incomprehensible. I can see they are in English, but for the most part they seem like haphazardly assembled words with the same degree of punctuation. The problem is exacerbated when you criticize common terms as jargon. > [@pkbites](#): > > Except that doesn’t fit what \*\*Lumpy \*\*posted. Agree that California’s gun laws are retarded, though. You may be right, but CA DA’s can be aggressive. The “taking the gun in hand” part is what I was thinking that could be construed as “exhibiting”. This is a tangent though. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/66 "2015-08-21T04:22:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The main problem with your posts in this thread is that they are nearly incomprehensible. I can see they are in English, but for the most part they seem like haphazardly assembled words with the same degree of punctuation. The problem is exacerbated when you criticize common terms as jargon. > You may be right, but CA DA’s can be aggressive. The “taking the gun in hand” part is what I was thinking that could be construed as “exhibiting”. This is a tangent though. I find jargon to be a crutch for the weak argument. It’s also the occasion to avoid answering points, so I am against it generally. This thread originally had to do with what happens when more than one person is armed in public, and problems pursuant to that. I’m simply asking for someone to make the nuanced argument for the NRA position on arming of citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/67 "2015-08-21T06:11:38Z")
> [@Norm66](#): > > Actually, gun handling safety \*can \*be summed up in the 4 basic safety rules and if those rules are followed, or even 3 are followed safety is achieved. However, I could easily put a two-hour presentation together expanding on those 4 rules so obviously there’s more to the discussion than those simple rules. If somebody tells me that gun safety is simple and easy- you just have to follow the four rules- my respect for them declines. I see too much of that. If somebody tells me that their 2 hour presentation revolves around the 4 rules… then I extend the benefit of the doubt and give props for clear communication. I’m not a gun owner, but frankly the 3-4 four rules that I’ve read look pretty solid, not that I know what I’m talking about. It’s just that there are other safety considerations. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/68 "2015-08-21T07:58:38Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Your use of logical fallacy jargon is an avoidance of the issue. I would no more use that than I would a smiley emoticon. but TEHO. > > You can use all the buzzwords in the dictionary. > > I was reducing, arguendo, ad absurdum . You grabbed the football. Fair enough, but then I outlined what you seemed to be saying and you claimed I “doubled down” > > What is the problem here that noone ever gets to any point. you may give an argument for the NRAs platform of arming. That’s how you demonstrate a false dilemma, and how you win arguments. > > There never is a nuance is there? Are you wiling to give it up? One reason that identifying logical fallacies is of value is that they serve to expose the bones of whatever actual argument may remain when the fallacy is removed. Yours was a strawman: you announced that the NRA argument must be either A or B, and then showed that both A and B are absurd, thus inviting your reader to conclude that the NRA argument is absurd. Now you try to shift the burden: to demand that I explain the argument, with the implication that it’s nonsense unless I do: an example of another fallacy, argument from ignorance. (“Since we don’t know, it must be wrong.”) The NRA argument is: people have both a natural and a legal right to self-defense. This right is exercised appropriately by permitting persons to legally carry handguns. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/69 "2015-08-21T11:14:30Z")
A non-theoretical example: When I was in college, some friends and I were studying in my apartment with the windows open. While we are sitting there, we hear a long series of gunshots from outside. After establishing that everyone who is in the apartment that isn’t grabbing a gun is in the safest position that can be had, the ones who know where the guns are grab them and creep to the window to peer out. We see a guy walking down the street, who is unloading a .22 rifle in the air, reloads from his shirt pocket, and repeats. If he had even leveled the rifle at my apartment, I would have hit him with a slug from a 12 gauge, and he’d be worm food; but he didn’t point it at my apartment. Even when he was reloading, the rifle was pointed up. He was arrested a block or so later, and no-one was reported hurt. I would have been more in the right than Tom if I had shot the guy, but it would be a pretty thin case if I tried to present it as protecting others. Presenting it as self defense wouldn’t really be practical, I think. Tom’s guilty of crime by the law and by common sense, in my opinion. Part of owning a gun is behaving as reasonable as possible when you’re using it. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/70 "2015-08-21T11:34:43Z")
I missed the edit window, but: I’ve seen people carrying long guns on the street many, many times. I may have looked at them curiously, but I didn’t feel threatened. For all I know, they’re carrying them to the pawn shop. Unless they carried them where liquor was served or sold, I didn’t think they were doing anything weird or illegal. An autoloader like an AR-15 would have been notable, but only because it wasn’t an action created before 1900. A Mossberg autoloading shotgun would be just as notable. The cops might have stopped you to ask you some very reasonable questions about where you were heading, but as long as your answers didn’t raise further suspicion, it was fine. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/71 "2015-08-21T11:41:02Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > The cops might have stopped you to ask you some very reasonable questions about where you were heading, but as long as your answers didn’t raise further suspicion, it was fine. And if I said, “To the movie theater” would they have probable cause to escalate the inquiry? ---
**Author:** ![Norm66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/53a042/32.png) [@Norm66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Norm66)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/72 "2015-08-21T11:52:24Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > If somebody tells me that gun safety is simple and easy- you just have to follow the four rules- my respect for them declines. I see too much of that. > > If somebody tells me that their 2 hour presentation revolves around the 4 rules… then I extend the benefit of the doubt and give props for clear communication. I’m not a gun owner, but frankly the 3-4 four rules that I’ve read look pretty solid, not that I know what I’m talking about. It’s just that there are other safety considerations. The 4 rules are specifically for gun _handling_, in general at a range but they can be extrapolated to in the field hunting or even defensive situations. But there is, as you noted, much more to gun safety than handling a gun. Carrying a gun requires specific training, a good holster and knowledge far beyond the 4 rules. There are also concerns with safe storage (especially with children in the house) that must be addressed so I’d have to agree that someone who thinks safety is easy if the 4 rules are used may possibly be missing part of the point. As for these hypothetical situations, they’re designed as almost a Kobiyashi Maru (sp?), type of unwinnable situation. If you’re making them up, you can just as easily make up situations where a gun is successfully used without even firing to stop a crime or attack. Responsible carriers do not see their gun as a talisman that will protect them merely by its presence. Situational awareness is equally important as it can allow avoidance of a bad situation. Beyond that, de-escalation is the next step. Only when no other choice is available does pulling a gun become a viable option. Again, simply having a gun does not guarantee a successful outcome, it merely allows options one wouldn’t otherwise have when dealing with violent criminals. One thing I will freely admit is that a significant percentage of concealed carriers do not seek out training beyond that which is mandated to qualify for their permit. It’s unfortunate but in my experience these are generally the folks who get their permit mostly to say they have it and maybe so they can have a gun in their console when they go off on vacation. Most of the true every day carriers I know have received professional training beyond (in some cases, far beyond) what is required. My wife and I have taken 3 professional classes and practice realistic drills very nearly every weekend. We also shoot pistol matches that help hone our skills (and are alot of fun). I can honestly say that we practice with our weapons more than a lot of law enforcement officers (who aren’t into shooting as a hobby) do. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/73 "2015-08-21T12:15:39Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And if I said, “To the movie theater” would they have probable cause to escalate the inquiry? Well I think so, yes. I can’t think of a many sane scenarios where a movie theater would be a reasonable place to think you needed to carry a long gun into. The cop would probably start asking some very pointed questions if “I was heading to the movie theater, no big deal” was presented as the reason for why they were carrying the gun. If their responses don’t explain the situation as something to not be alarmed about pretty quickly, I’d expect that the cop would most likely observe that person fairly damn closely until it was established they weren’t a threat or were arrested for other reasons than just carrying a long gun. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/74 "2015-08-21T12:40:43Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > Well I think so, yes. > > I can’t think of a many sane scenarios where a movie theater would be a reasonable place to think you needed to carry a long gun into. So those open carrying a long gun must justify their carrying with a reasonable scenario, beyond self-defense? And, in light of current events, isn’t a movie theater exactly the place a citizen might expect to have to defend themselves? > [@](#): > > The cop would probably start asking some very pointed questions if “I was heading to the movie theater, no big deal” was presented as the reason for why they were carrying the gun. Well now, that wasn’t the original question. If law enforcement asks, “Where are you going?” does answering “To the movie theater” create probable cause? Whereas, if they ask, “What is the reason for carrying that gun?” the appropriate answer, even by psycho killers, is, “For constitutional self-defense.” ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/75 "2015-08-21T13:06:43Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So those open carrying a long gun must justify their carrying with a reasonable scenario, beyond self-defense? And, in light of current events, isn’t a movie theater exactly the place a citizen might expect to have to defend themselves? The officer has a reason to begin asking questions of the person carrying the gun. If they don’t have a reasonable response, or refuse to respond: I’d expect them to persist in questioning the person, at the least. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Well now, that wasn’t the original question. If law enforcement asks, “Where are you going?” does answering “To the movie theater” create probable cause? Whereas, if they ask, “What is the reason for carrying that gun?” the appropriate answer, even by psycho killers, is, “For constitutional self-defense.” If their response is “For constitutional self defense”, and they proceed into the movie theater, I would have no problem with (and would usually expect) the officer to continue to observe them, including into the movie theater. Several of the persons I have seen walking with a long gun down the street ended up having a short conversation with the police. From personal experience watching people being arrested, I would imagine if they encountered a person carrying a gun who they thought was deranged in a way where the gun was going to be used in the near future, a reason to arrest would be easy to come by. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/76 "2015-08-21T13:16:26Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > The officer has a reason to begin asking questions of the person carrying the gun. If they don’t have a reasonable response, or refuse to respond: I’d expect them to persist in questioning the person, at the least. The meat of the question is, what constitutes a reasonable response? Can’t I just say “I’m going to the movies, and I am carrying this gun in case I need to defend myself.” Is any further justification required? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/77 "2015-08-21T13:39:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Lumpy** : > > No armed bystander, not even a police officer, can necessarily prevent a gunman from shooting people and possibly killing them. What they can do is stop the bodycount at one, or two or three instead of ten or more. You contradict yourself. Stopping the bodycount at one _is_ preventing the gunman from shooting people. If you get your shot in after the gunman has already shot someone, then you’re stopping the body count at two, not one. It is gratifying, though, to see the gun grabbers in this thread finally acknowledging that a gun can’t actually be used to defend against a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/78 "2015-08-21T13:50:29Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > You contradict yourself. Stopping the bodycount at one _is_ preventing the gunman from shooting people. If you get your shot in after the gunman has already shot someone, then you’re stopping the body count at two, not one. Don’t be pedantic; I was thinking of bystanders, not the shooter. > [@](#): > > It is gratifying, though, to see the gun grabbers in this thread finally acknowledging that a gun can’t actually be used to defend against a gun. I don’t know what’s been said that leads to that distortion. If guns don’t defend then why do police carry them? Unless you postulate that police have special permission to shoot first under the least suspicion, but that’s for the Controversial Encounters omnibus thread. Since defensive use of firearms does actually happen with some regularity, the anti’s constant refrain that self-defense with guns is a yahoo fantasy gets really old. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/79 "2015-08-21T14:26:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > One reason that identifying logical fallacies is of value is that they serve to expose the bones of whatever actual argument may remain when the fallacy is removed. > > Yours was a strawman: you announced that the NRA argument must be either A or B, and then showed that both A and B are absurd, thus inviting your reader to conclude that the NRA argument is absurd. > > Now you try to shift the burden: to demand that I explain the argument, with the implication that it’s nonsense unless I do: an example of another fallacy, argument from ignorance. (“Since we don’t know, it must be wrong.”) > > The NRA argument is: people have both a natural and a legal right to self-defense. This right is exercised appropriately by permitting persons to legally carry handguns. Do you consider this a nuanced argument for arming citizens? You are simply avoiding the issue which is what this thread is. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207/80 "2015-08-21T15:01:46Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The meat of the question is, what constitutes a reasonable response? Can’t I just say “I’m going to the movies, and I am carrying this gun in case I need to defend myself.” Is any further justification required? As I thought was made clear by the rest of my post: No, but the cop would be within his duties to continue observing the person up to and including their visit to the theater. Once they left the theater, further questioning and observation may be necessary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-threats-a-thought-experiment/728207.md?page=5)