The War on Guns

[Bone]

@Esox_Lucius

Pooling our resources to get better services than if we fended for ourselves is just the opposite of abdicating responsibility. We’re being more responsible both for ourselves and everyone else. “Abdicating responsibility” is just plain false.

If you think about it that way, then sure. However, I consider all things individual responsibilities. There are things [like I mentioned] that are clearly more effective and efficient when resources are pooled. In that sense, the individual abdicates to the larger group. There is nothing wrong with that and it’s an amoral decision on its own.

Nope. It’s a strawman.

No - it’s not a strawman argument. I think you are either misusing that term or are mistaken. I am not misrepresenting your argument by asking a question.

It assumes I have a need for personal security and defense even when I don’t.

Don’t you? How do you reconcile this statement with your previous acknowledgment that no one is safe from random violence? Either you are responsible for your personal security and defense or someone else is. I suppose no one is could be an answer as well. I’m just curious as to who you believe fills this role.

I believe that you may have assessed your own individual risk tolerance, and made a rational decision on what your likelihood of encountering situations that may call for armed defense, as compared to the costs of carrying on a daily basis. That analysis for you may have come out on the side where carrying would not be worth it. That’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. It becomes objectionable only when you apply that analysis to others and attempt to force them to conform to your belief system.

@Esox_Lucius

I showed how a gun can be unequalled by having a bigger gun or more of them. If that’s not right, I’m listening.

It’s not right. While superior firepower makes a significant difference in certain types of conflict - for many others it does not. A 9mm conceal pistol with a 10 round mag and a couple backup mags would be sufficient in most self defense situations I’d conjecture. Even if the other guy has a .40 caliber the only thing that’s going to matter much is marksmanship. If we’re talking about engaging targets at distance then rifles vs. pistols will come into play, but for the most part it’s not an arms race - it’s a just a question if you are armed.

Safety is compromised more when anyone has a gun around them. The more guns, the more chance for accidents, misunderstandings, mental blow-ups, road rage shootings, you name it.

So you are opposed to the police being armed? If not, then you recognize there is a trade off - that yes people can misuse firearms but they can also provide positive utility. If you recognize that, then we are really talking about scale and the weight that we attribute to the costs and the benefits.

@Esox_Lucius

If so few carry in public, there doesn’t appear to be a need to, so why would anyone?

There is a couple ways to respond to this, but essentially it’s because those individuals have made the cost/benefit decision and it came out in favor of carrying. I also carry a small flashlight with me everyday. Most people probably do not. I’ve found it useful to do so and it doesn’t inconvenience me too much so I do so. Plus I really like flashlights.

@Esox_Lucius

In sixty years, I’ve been involved in one physical altercation (in my late teens, big surprise). I have as much fear of being attacked as I have of being hit by a meteorite. You have considerably more fear in you, apparently. Is that how you want to live?

I’m not sure if this is merely adding an anecdote or if this is part of your argument. If it’s part of your argument are you saying that since you personally have never been attacked that no one need fear attack? I hope you see that’s a poor argument so I have to assume that’s not the one you are making.

It’s not fear - it’s being prepared. There is a difference and to think otherwise would be mischaracterizing the sentiment of others who believe differently than you. There are a number of other things that individuals choose to do to prepare for unlikely situations and they don’t necessarily do it out of fear.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Lumpy

In 52 years I have been fortunate enough to never be in a situation where I needed a gun. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen tomorrow…

How do you define “need” in this case? Would you shoot someone who just wants your wallet, or would he have to be threatening you physically?

And how effective is a gun against criminals? If I’ve learned anything from Law and Order (heh), it’s that criminals aren’t interested in a fair fight. Aren’t they more likely to outnumber you, sneak up from behind, ambush you or otherwise catch you unaware and render your gun useless?

[Esox_Lucius]

@Kable

Here’s a nice visual for you:

File:Rtc2.gif - Wikipedia

Would you be so kind as to tell us what’s happened to the homicide rate in this country as the map turned blue?

@ExTank

Those who wish to disarm people for their’s and society’s safety point to gun crime stats, which are, ironically, the lowest they’ve been in nearly half a century.

You’re quick to assume that guns are responsible for the lower numbers. Do you think there could be other reasons?

I could show you maps of a lot more countries where gun deaths per capita are lower than in the U.S. Does that “prove” that more gun regulation results in fewer gun deaths?

[Esox_Lucius]

@Bone

If you think about it that way, then sure. However, I consider all things individual responsibilities. There are things [like I mentioned] that are clearly more effective and efficient when resources are pooled. In that sense, the individual abdicates to the larger group. There is nothing wrong with that and it’s an amoral decision on its own.

That’s an odd way to look at it from a member of a social species.

@Bone

No - it’s not a strawman argument. I think you are either misusing that term or are mistaken. I am not misrepresenting your argument by asking a question.

The point is that I don’t see it terms of personal security and self-defense as the question assumes I should. To me it’s all about safety (big difference between the two), and you know who’s responsible for my safety? Everyone. Under the social contract, everyone has a responsibility to not harm me, and I’m responsible for not harming anyone else. It’s worked so well that I’ve never needed a weapon of any kind. Even the one fight was settled satisfactorily with fists. I’m bloody thankful that guns weren’t involved or there’s a chance I could have ended up dead. And the general public carrying guns only means there’s a greater chance that I could be a victim. Quality of life for me means being safe enough to not worry about carrying deadly weapons for personal security.

Not only that, carrying a gun would violate my end of the social contract. I’ve already mentioned the power that a gun gives you over others, but it didn’t seem to get much traction so I’ll mention it again. As highly as I might think of myself, I have to acknowledge that I don’t warrant that much power over everyone else. Nor does anyone else deserve to have that power over me.

[Kable]

@Esox_Lucius

And how effective is a gun against criminals?

Pretty effective in my experience.

If I’ve learned anything from Law and Order (heh), it’s that criminals aren’t interested in a fair fight. Aren’t they more likely to outnumber you, sneak up from behind, ambush you or otherwise catch you unaware and render your gun useless?

I’m sure all that happens sometimes, but in any case I would rather be armed than not. Criminals are often dumber than they show in TV, FYI. Seems they have knives and clubs quite often. There are all sorts of real life defense stories if you are interested.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Esox_Lucius

You’re quick to assume that guns are responsible for the lower numbers. Do you think there could be other reasons?

There could, in fact, be other reasons. There likely are other reasons. But what the map does show is that the proliferation of “shall issue” concealed carry policies hasn’t resulted in the “blood in the streets” predictions of such groups as the Brady Campaign. In other words, since violence is decreasing as concealed carry is increasing, you can’t make the claim that it is having a negative effect, and as such it doesn’t support any gun control argument at all.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Kable

I’m curious to know, if crime is so bad in his area that he feels he needs to carry a deadly weapon, do you think he should be free to do so?

Hmm, tough question. I had to think long and hard about that because, as you very well know, I have absolutely no idea at all where I stand on that. But I finally decided, and you know what I think? I think you should quit using the word “free” in relation to guns. It makes you sound like a puppet.

[Kable]

@Esox_Lucius

You’re quick to assume that guns are responsible for the lower numbers.

Guns are responsible for the lower numbers? That’s an interesting thought. You must then be aware that crime is decreasing rapidly as more and more people cary concealed. I was more just looking to show that your earlier statement…

“Safety is compromised more when anyone has a gun around them. The more guns, the more chance for accidents, misunderstandings, mental blow-ups, road rage shootings, you name it.”

…doesn’t appear to hold up to experience.

Do you think there could be other reasons?

Of course, but it certainly seems that more people carrying guns does not compromise societal safety.

I could show you maps of a lot more countries where gun deaths per capita are lower than in the U.S. Does that “prove” that more gun regulation results in fewer gun deaths?

Of course not, seems you know it too.

[Kable]

@Esox_Lucius

Under the social contract, everyone has a responsibility to not harm me, and I’m responsible for not harming anyone else.

Are you under the impression this social contract thing is fool proof?

It’s worked so well that I’ve never needed a weapon of any kind.

Would you call your experience a large enough sample to assure everyone that they are safe?

Not only that, carrying a gun would violate my end of the social contract.

If you don’t trust yourself, they I agree, you should not carry a gun.

[Kable]

@Esox_Lucius

Hmm, tough question. I had to think long and hard about that because, as you very well know, I have absolutely no idea at all where I stand on that. But I finally decided, and you know what I think?

No, because you didn’t answer the question.

I think you should quit using the word “free” in relation to guns. It makes you sound like a puppet.

Ad hominem to divert attention away from the question? You would have been wiser just to ignore it. After you answer the question maybe you could give a reason why the word “free” in relation to gun ownership does not apply.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Lumpy

In the complete absence of guns, how safe am I if a 6’2" 260 lb man decides to play “The Knockout Game” with me? Or if four youths surround me and tell me to hand over my wallet and cell phone? Guns don’t just make a big person and a small person equal, they mean that four people are no longer invulnerable against and omnipotent over one person- even if everyone in the scenario is armed.

Despite the outcry over “too many guns”, the fact is that most of those guns stay at home or locked away. The only people who routinely carry are police and security guards, career criminals, and probably less than 2% of the general population who choose to carry regularly. We’ve never actually tried a truly armed society, in which the majority of people in public could be expected to be carrying. Considering the anti’s insistence that “shall issue” would turn every fender bender into a shootout, I for one would have no qualms whatsoever about giving such an experiment a try.

It seems a bit odd to have one paragraph saying that guns are a highly useful tool for the levelling of the playing field, and then on the other saying that people apparently don’t widely use this tool. If the majority of gun owners keep theirs locked safely away at home, then why is a gun being useful for protecting oneself outside of the home an argument? People apparently aren’t taking them there.

[Lumpy]

@Revenant_Threshold

It seems a bit odd to have one paragraph saying that guns are a highly useful tool for the levelling of the playing field, and then on the other saying that people apparently don’t widely use this tool. If the majority of gun owners keep theirs locked safely away at home, then why is a gun being useful for protecting oneself outside of the home an argument? People apparently aren’t taking them there.

Probably because most people can live their daily lives without a gun, unless they get unlucky. Because most people think of “safety” in terms of lack of threat in their environment, and because a significant number of people react to the threat of violence with fear and pacifism. Some actively loath and are afraid of firearms. Guns are more common in rural areas not just because people are more likely to have been raised with them and find them non-threatening, but because people in rural areas are acutely aware of the response time for law enforcement makes self-defense a necessity.

Right now, the number of people who routinely carry is too low to offer much “herd immunity”. If 20% of the populace went armed instead of 2%, the fear of assaulting an armed victim would be a strong deterrent.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Lumpy

Probably because most people can live their daily lives without a gun, unless they get unlucky. Because most people think of “safety” in terms of lack of threat in their environment, and because a significant number of people react to the threat of violence with fear and pacifism. Some actively loath and are afraid of firearms. Guns are more common in rural areas not just because people are more likely to have been raised with them and find them non-threatening, but because people in rural areas are acutely aware of the response time for law enforcement makes self-defense a necessity.

Right now, the number of people who routinely carry is too low to offer much “herd immunity”. If 20% of the populace went armed instead of 2%, the fear of assaulting an armed victim would be a strong deterrent.

That’s not the point I was making. I’m not talking about people who don’t own guns and therefore can’t take them anywhere - i’m talking about your point, which seemed to that a) there are situations where a gun is useful to have when you’re out and about but that b) most people who already own guns aren’t taking them with them when they’re out - they’re leaving them locked up at home.

If one of the useful purposes of carrying a gun is for protection outside the home, but the majority of people who own guns are leaving them at home, doesn’t that negate the first argument? There’s not much point to allowing gun ownership on the basis of protection in a public place if people don’t actually take their guns anywhere. To put it another way, if you’re correct in what you stated, then there would be no point in making less restrictive gun laws, because people aren’t taking advantage of them - based upon just that argument, at least.

Guns as an effective deterrent in public doesn’t work as an argument if gun owners don’t take their guns into public areas.

[Kable]

@Revenant_Threshold

i’m talking about your point, which seemed to that a) there are situations where a gun is useful to have when you’re out and about but that b) most people who already own guns aren’t taking them with them when they’re out - they’re leaving them locked up at home.

Most guns that people own are not at all ideal for daily carry in most communities. Those guns being rifles, shotguns, large and even medium sized handguns. Most CCW are compacts and subcompacts pistols. Also most people that have guns don’t have have CCW permits. A number of people do have CCW permit and do have appropriate weapons and do carry them.

If one of the useful purposes of carrying a gun is for protection outside the home, but the majority of people who own guns are leaving them at home, doesn’t that negate the first argument?

I think it just says if you are out and about and need a gun, and you or someone around doesn’t have a gun, it won’t be useful.

There’s not much point to allowing gun ownership on the basis of protection in a public place if people don’t actually take their guns anywhere. To put it another way, if you’re correct in what you stated, then there would be no point in making less restrictive gun laws, because people aren’t taking advantage of them - based upon just that argument, at least.

I generally take advantage of it. So do a number of my friends.

Guns as an effective deterrent in public doesn’t work as an argument if gun owners don’t take their guns into public areas.

True, that’s why I carry mine. Happy to fight your ignorance.

[Bone]

@Esox_Lucius

How do you define “need” in this case? Would you shoot someone who just wants your wallet, or would he have to be threatening you physically?

Are you talking about the panhandler on the corner who is asking for money (low threat level) or the guy who is mugging you? The guy who is mugging you is ***threatening ***you physically. If someone says or does something that is equivalent to “Give me X or I will harm you or those you are with” and that threat is genuine then I would have no objection to defending myself with force. That may result in that person(s) dying. Whatever X is is irrelevant. It could be $1 or it could be $1M.

And how effective is a gun against criminals? If I’ve learned anything from Law and Order (heh), it’s that criminals aren’t interested in a fair fight. Aren’t they more likely to outnumber you, sneak up from behind, ambush you or otherwise catch you unaware and render your gun useless?

Again I have to question if this is part of your actual argument - the equivalent of “I saw it on TV”. Of course guns aren’t magical and they don’t confer any special advantage other then the fact they are a force multiplier. A gun can be ineffective at times for sure. It is situational. Other times it can be very effective. Ask Bernie Goetz.

@Esox_Lucius

To me it’s all about safety (big difference between the two), and you know who’s responsible for my safety? Everyone. Under the social contract, everyone has a responsibility to not harm me, and I’m responsible for not harming anyone else.

So if I phrased the question, “who is responsible for your personal safety” then you would think it’s not a loaded question? The meaning is essentially the same and I see that you have answered. The problem with this is that everyone in fact is not responsible for your safety. If you are being attacked in the street, passerbys have zero obligation to assist you. Shit, in the US the police have zero obligation to assist you. Some people may and that’s great, but there is no actual responsibility to do so. The social contract as an idea does nothing to protect you or provide for your safety when faced with conflict.

If you do not personally take responsibility for your own safety then you are relying on the good will of others to do so. Your greatest defense is the hope that you will not lose the crime lottery and be the victim of a violent crime. This actually works for the vast majority of people so it’s not an unreasonable tactic.

And the general public carrying guns only means there’s a greater chance that I could be a victim.

It also means there’s a greater chance of one of those people coming to your aid should you need it. At the moment I wouldn’t put a weight value on those competing interests but it is important to view both the costs and the benefits when making an analysis between multiple alternatives.

Quality of life for me means being safe enough to not worry about carrying deadly weapons for personal security.

I doubt a single person has an objection to this. Like I said before, each individual decides if carrying is worth it to them. Why do you get to decide for me?

@Esox_Lucius

Hmm, tough question. I had to think long and hard about that because, as you very well know, I have absolutely no idea at all where I stand on that. But I finally decided, and you know what I think? I think you should quit using the word “free” in relation to guns. It makes you sound like a puppet.

What word would you prefer? Would “able” suffice? How about “allowed” or “legally permitted”? It’s all the same idea so feel free to address that - or you can quibble about the semantics.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Kable

I think it just says if you are out and about and need a gun, and you or someone around doesn’t have a gun, it won’t be useful.

That’s actually, and solely, my point. I’m not (at this point) questioning the usefulness of guns. I’m questioning Lumpy’s use of the argument that guns are useful in public, given that he/she believes that the majority of guns are left at home.

True, that’s why I carry mine. Happy to fight your ignorance.

If it’s your contention that a majority of gun owners do carry their guns around with them, then it’s not my ignorance you’re fighting, but** Lumpy’s**. It’s good to know that a gun owner agrees with my point, though.

[Kable]

@Revenant_Threshold

That’s actually, and solely, my point. I’m not (at this point) questioning the usefulness of guns. I’m questioning Lumpy’s use of the argument that guns are useful in public, given that he/she believes that the majority of guns are left at home.

I think it should be obvious that most people leave their guns at home. I said so myself and even pointed out reasons as to why.

If it’s your contention that a majority of gun owners do carry their guns around with them, then it’s not my ignorance you’re fighting, but** Lumpy’s**. It’s good to know that a gun owner agrees with my point, though.

It’s your ignorance. I don’t know anyone who claims that most gun owners carry their guns around.

[Revenant_Threshold]

I’m not claiming that most gun owners carry their guns around with them. I haven’t made any claim either way. I’m questioning the claim that guns are useful in public given the idea that gun owners don’t carry their guns around with them, as suggested by** Lumpy**. You and I are in agreement on this, Kable, so far as I can tell.

[Kable]

@Revenant_Threshold

I’m questioning the claim that guns are useful in public given the idea that gun owners don’t carry their guns around with them, as suggested by** Lumpy**.

I don’t recall Lumpy saying that some gun owners don’t carry their guns around. If I recall his argument correct he said maybe 2% do, and he thought there might be more deterrence to crime if the number were larger. I don’t know if the 2% number is accurate or not, or in what population it is in reference to.

You and I are in agreement on this, Kable, so far as I can tell.

And so was Lumpy, so far as I remember.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Well, here’s the quote.

@Lumpy

In the complete absence of guns, how safe am I if a 6’2" 260 lb man decides to play “The Knockout Game” with me? Or if four youths surround me and tell me to hand over my wallet and cell phone? Guns don’t just make a big person and a small person equal, they mean that four people are no longer invulnerable against and omnipotent over one person- even if everyone in the scenario is armed.

Despite the outcry over “too many guns”, the fact is that most of those guns stay at home or locked away. The only people who routinely carry are police and security guards, career criminals, and probably less than 2% of the general population who choose to carry regularly. We’ve never actually tried a truly armed society, in which the majority of people in public could be expected to be carrying. Considering the anti’s insistence that “shall issue” would turn every fender bender into a shootout, I for one would have no qualms whatsoever about giving such an experiment a try.

“Most of those guns stay at home or locked away” seems like saying gun owners don’t carry their guns around to me.