Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1)

[Slash1972]

@k9bfriender

Well, yeah, sometimes, when you start your drinking in the afternoon, you are passed out by the evening.

LOL

I wish I could!

[Projammer]

@Slash1972

I’m drinking tonight to try to remove the hurt his post has caused me.

And after all the times I was told “if you are threatened enough to pull a gun, you are threatened enough to use it”

Mind…blown!

Guns change the dynamic of power.

You pull a knife on me and tell me to give you my wallet. The balance of power is in your favor. My life is in danger and I’m justified in shooting you.

I reach into my pocket and pull out my gun instead of my wallet and point it at you. The balance of power has shifted to me. You have a choice to make.

Choose to drop the knife and put up your hands. Choose to turn and run away. I no longer have provocation to shoot you.

Choose to lunge at me with the knife or attempt to grab the gun. You might injure me but you’re definitely getting shot.

Either outcome qualifies as a DGU and I would much prefer the one that doesn’t end with you shot. But since you set the conditions for me to draw my weapon I am willing to accept the one with you shot.

[Gyrate]

Or:

You use words I don’t like. I can’t come up with a riposte. The balance of power is in your favor.

I reach into my pocket and pull out my gun instead. You run away because clearly I am a deranged lunatic with a gun.

That qualifies as a DGU too.

Or how about:

I am walking along minding my business and enjoying a bag of Skittles.

You feel frightened by my appearance and threaten me with a gun.

I, fearing you are about to shoot me in cold blood, attack you in an attempt to disarm you.

You shoot me and claim that the fact that I attacked you gave you the right to do so.

DGU, baby.

[Slash1972]

What about a guy looked threatening to me in line at McDonalds. He looked like he might cut in front of me and get his cheeseburgers before me. I opened my coat to show him my gun. He went to the back of the line. I defended my place in line with my gun. DGU!

[Muffin]

Toddler shoots and wounds himself, thereby saving his family from a potentially dangerous temper tantrum. DGU!

Toddler shoots another toddler dead, thereby saving countless lives should the dead baby have lived to be a degenerate liberal. DGU!

What it comes down to is the handgun nuts’ cognitive distortion. They convince themselves that they are special snowflakes whose guns protect them from statistics pertaining to the difference in gun death rates between gun owners and non-gun owners, and the difference in gun death rates between first world countries high gun ownership rates and low gun ownership rates.

Their FREEDUM!$@#!!! argument simply does not hold water, for it fails to accept that their personal freedom to put themselves at risk must take the back seat to their personal freedom putting others at risk.

[Fear_Itself]

Good guys with guns

The Transportation Security Administration’s Office of Inspection has documented more than 200 cases of air marshals allegedly misusing firearms or misbehaving with guns between roughly 2005 and 2017, according to records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The cases ranged from seemingly mundane issues, such as improper storage of weapons, to situations in which air marshals allegedly jeopardized public safety.

In 19 of the cases, air marshals allegedly fired their weapons accidentally. For example, the documents state that in 2017 an agent based in Charlotte, North Carolina, “unintentionally discharged a personally owned firearm resulting in a gunshot wound to his right foot.”

A 2013 case described an air marshal mistakenly firing his weapon inside a hotel room and damaging a television in an adjoining room.

More than 70 of the incidents relate to lost, misplaced or stolen weapons. At least three of those cases involved air marshals forgetting their firearms in airplane bathrooms. Two others involved weapons misplaced in airports.

On one occasion, an air marshal allegedly left his gun inside a Bed Bath & Beyond store in Totowa, New Jersey. In another, an investigation was launched after police found a “range bag” containing a gun box and ammunition in a school park.

At least 13 of the cases involved alcohol, including a 2012 case in which an armed air marshal allegedly flew on a plane while drunk and another in 2014 in which an agent was accused of being intoxicated during a firearms training session.

[Batano]

@Projammer

Guns change the dynamic of power.

You pull a knife on me and tell me to give you my wallet. The balance of power is in your favor. My life is in danger and I’m justified in shooting you.

I reach into my pocket and pull out my gun instead of my wallet and point it at you. The balance of power has shifted to me. You have a choice to make.

Choose to drop the knife and put up your hands. Choose to turn and run away. I no longer have provocation to shoot you.

Choose to lunge at me with the knife or attempt to grab the gun. You might injure me but you’re definitely getting shot.

Either outcome qualifies as a DGU and I would much prefer the one that doesn’t end with you shot. But since you set the conditions for me to draw my weapon I am willing to accept the one with you shot.

Did you get a stiffy writing that?

[galen_ubal]

Y’see, Projammer, you keep talking about the Power of the Gun, and how it is so useful in defensive situations…
…but every stat I’ve seen puts DGU at something like 3%-3.5% of all gun use. Cite. That’s about the same - in fact, a little less - than incidents of unintentional shooting"

Now, I know what you’re going to say. Biased cite, not all incidents reported, blah blah.
Heard it before, and it’s bullshit. Come up with cites, come up with proof before you convince me that it’s a good idea to give every 18+, sexually insecure fuckwit a deadly weapon. Otherwise it’s all just anecdotes and fairy tales to prop up your need for a lead-spitting fleshlight.

[MEBuckner]

@galen_ubal

Y’see, Projammer, you keep talking about the Power of the Gun, and how it is so useful in defensive situations…
…but every stat I’ve seen puts DGU at something like 3%-3.5% of all gun use. Cite. That’s about the same - in fact, a little less - than incidents of unintentional shooting"

According to that site, there are about 2,000 DGUs in the U.S. every year. Other sources–who are very far from pro-gun–come up with numbers as high as 100,000 DGUs a year. (And pro-gun sources, of course, come up with figures that are a multiple of that.)

[Czarcasm]

@MEBuckner

According to that site, there are about 2,000 DGUs in the U.S. every year. Other sources–who are very far from pro-gun–come up with numbers as high as 100,000 DGUs a year. (And pro-gun sources, of course, come up with figures that are a multiple of that.)

From your link:

“The likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likelihood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%),” Hemenway and co-author Sara J. Solnik found.

[Slash1972]

That study must be seriously flawed and biased, because every gun owner KNOWS that having a gun makes you safer.

[MEBuckner]

Like I said, these aren’t pro-gun people by any means. And yet even they are reporting a rate of DGU that’s at least fifty times higher than the site galen ubal was linking to.

[Slash1972]

@MEBuckner

Like I said, these aren’t pro-gun people by any means. And yet even they are reporting a rate of DGU that’s at least fifty times higher than the site galen ubal was linking to.

Your link is to a Washington Post article that contains a link to the paper that provides the 100,000 number. But the link to the paper cannot be found.

[Railer13]

@Slash1972

Your link is to a Washington Post article that contains a link to the paper that provides the 100,000 number. But the link to the paper cannot be found.

100,000 each year would be almost 274 per day. Surely the NRA or some other Second Amendment organization has up-to-the-minute documentation from which Projammer could find his daily updates? Or maybe just provide us with a link?

[MEBuckner]

Link rot. The bane of the Internet.

I think this should be a reasonably stable link to the paper in question. The specific passage where the author of that Washington Post blog post is getting the “around 100,000 per year” number is:

One possibility has long been incorporated in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), conducted for the U.S. Department of Justice by the Census Bureau [U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996a]. In this survey the false-positive problem is minimized by the design of the questionnaire. The only respondents who are asked whether they attempted to defend themselves in a crime are those who indicated that they had been the victim of a crime in which they had direct contact with the perpetrator. Limiting the DGU question to this small group changes the false-positive arithmetic dramatically. The resulting estimate for the annual number of DGUs (1992-1994) is about 108,000, a small fraction of the Kleck-Gertz estimate.

Note that the authors of this paper are extremely dubious of the value of privately owned firearms for self-defense. That’s sort of the point: Even the very gun-skeptical David Hemenway and company at one point suggest an estimated number of defensive gun uses that’s roughly fifty times greater than that reported by the Gun Violence Archive.

Note also that that estimate of DGUs was actually from the early Nineties; since the crime rate has dropped in half since then, perhaps the DGU rate has also dropped in half. So, the number of DGUs every year is 2,000; or maybe it’s 100,000; or maybe it’s 50,000. Or maybe (in the 1990s) it was 2.2 to 2.5 million, meaning in the much lower crime environment of the 21st century it’s…who the hell knows? 1 million or 1.2 million?

The statistics for this are basically garbage. Including the one posted by galen ubal that I was originally responding to.

[Slash1972]

Great, thanks for find the link!

[Defensive_Indifference]

This is not stupid gun news – in fact I think it’s probably good news – but I can’t think of where else to put it. And it will probably generate some stupid responses from the hoplophiles out there. The Trump admin is expected to announce soon a federal rule effectively banning bump stocks. Via CNN:

The Trump administration plans to announce the long-anticipated federal rule officially banning bump stocks in the coming days, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

<snip>

Under the new rule, bump stock owners would be required to destroy or surrender the devices to authorities. Members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks, according to a source familiar with the final rule.

While I think this is probably good news, I haven’t devoted enough time and research to the topic of bump stocks to have a very fully formed opinion. I do wonder what the gun crowd thinks of this, though. Wasn’t Obama supposed to be the guy to come after the guns? Instead, he signed legislation that expanded gun rights in national parks. Conversely, the Trump admin is supporting a rule that will actually take gun accessories, if not actual guns, away from law abiding gun owners.

What do our resident gun aficionados think about this? Can we expect anguished cries of Molon Labe?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

nm

[Slash1972]

@Defensive_Indifference

What do our resident gun aficionados think about this? Can we expect anguished cries of Molon Labe?

Trump is doing it, so there is not a problem. It absolutely has no effect on my 2nd Amendment rights, because Republicans.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

I know, right? Everybody knows that only Democrats can take away 2nd Amendment rights.