The War on Guns

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Kable

What?

Helmets being useful for protection is besides the point, if we are arguing for helmet ownership based on their protective ability, if they aren’t worn by a majority, essentially. It’s different in that helmets and guns have other properties, of course, so it doesn’t 100% parse across.

I’d be willing to bet any amount of money you want that you can’t roll 9/10 heads on your first try, and any number of additional tries you want. $100 an attempt sound fair to you? How about $10,000 cause I’ll bet any amount you can afford, over and over again.

Of course I wouldn’t take that bet, because, after all, I am the one arguing that it is an unlikely, difficult task. But the probability is greater than 0%. Likewise with the hero; you can’t just say that he did it, therefore it was easy, because people do do unlikely or difficult things first time. It is, again, unlikely or difficult, but that’s unless it’s a 0% chance, it can happen.

Likewise - hypothetically - the hero in the video could have had a 1% chance of successfully doing what he did. That would make it a highly unlikely, or highly difficult task (or both). Yet that doesn’t mean he *couldn’t *do it. An argument for ease from something happening just doesn’t work in that way.

Probably.

Based on what?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Kable

So which part of that is wrong?

I don’t know whether either part is wrong, which is why I haven’t claimed that either part is wrong. I’m making arguments based on those claims being* correct*, in theory.

That’s the whole point of my own argument - it relies upon what Lumpy said, not intends to prove them wrong. And i’m not claiming that** Lumpy** is wrong.

[Kable]

@DragonAsh

Tell you what, I’ll pay you $10 every time I don’t get 9 heads out of 10 flips, you pay me $10,000 every time I do get 9 heads. I’ll play that game for as long as you want, over and over again. Heck, I’ll pay you $90 every time I don’t get 9 heads.

No thanks. How about this? How about you watch me jump over a piece of paper 3 times in a row. How much are you willing to bet me I can’t do it again?

[Kable]

@Revenant_Threshold

Helmets being useful for protection is besides the point, if we are arguing for helmet ownership based on their protective ability, if they aren’t worn by a majority, essentially.

What? So if only 40% of motorcycle riders wear helmets, then you shouldn’t buy one for protective ability?

Of course I wouldn’t take that bet, because, after all, I am the one arguing that it is an unlikely, difficult task.

Argue for it all you want, but you don’t know what you are talking about.

But the probability is greater than 0%. Likewise with the hero; you can’t just say that he did it, therefore it was easy, because people do do unlikely or difficult things first time. It is, again, unlikely or difficult, but that’s unless it’s a 0% chance, it can happen.

Obviously, however I’m also saying it’s easy, cause I know it’s easy.

Likewise - hypothetically - the hero in the video could have had a 1% chance of successfully doing what he did. That would make it a highly unlikely, or highly difficult task (or both). Yet that doesn’t mean he *couldn’t *do it. An argument for ease from something happening just doesn’t work in that way.

He had a lot better than a 1% chance.

Based on what?

The big target at the short distance.

[Kable]

@Revenant_Threshold

I don’t know whether either part is wrong, which is why I haven’t claimed that either part is wrong. I’m making arguments based on those claims being* correct*, in theory.

That’s the whole point of my own argument - it relies upon what Lumpy said, not intends to prove them wrong. And i’m not claiming that** Lumpy** is wrong.

What again, was your point?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Kable

What? So if only 40% of motorcycle riders wear helmets, then you shouldn’t buy one for protective ability?

Sure you should. Once again, I am not disagreeing with the idea that wearing a helmet is useful for protection.

Argue for it all you want, but you don’t know what you are talking about.

That’s why i’m relying, in part, on an experienced gun handler’s words.

Obviously, however I’m also saying it’s easy, cause I know it’s easy.

And the shooting range owner knows that it is not. It would seem as though being an experienced gun handler is not a surefire way to come to the correct understanding of how difficult the shot was given that, logically, at least one of the two of you must be incorrect.

He had a lot better than a 1% chance.

That’s why I put the word “hypothetical” in there. To show that I was talking about a hypothetical chance. You actually quoted the part where I included hypothetical. The point of that section was merely to show that, so long as there is a a chance, a task can be accomplished - it’s not enough to say that something is easy because it was accomplished, because difficult, unlikely tasks can also be accomplished.

The big target at the short distance.

Which he also saw. We actually see him watching the same footage that we get to see, in fact, so he’s working off of the same information that we are. It seems as though your reasoning for believing him to be speaking in bad faith is that he disagrees with you. Is that correct?

I actually have a question myself. I would consider a hero to be someone who accomplishes a difficult task at some risk to themself. So when we talk about war heroes, and award them medals, we’re talking about people who accomplished some tricky act at a risk to their own life. If we talk about charitable heroes, we’re talking about people who give a large amount of money which is a significant dent in their savings. If I go out and give £5 to charity, for example, that may be a good act, but I wouldn’t call it a heroic act.

With that in mind, it makes sense for me to call the 72 year old man in the video a “hero”; to my mind, he accomplished a difficult task. Because the task was difficult, there was a non-insignificant chance he would fail, at which point he, himself, would find his life at risk. Likewise if there is a chance he could have shot the victim, again he takes that risk to his conscience. Given that you believe the shot was an easy one, and therefore that since it was so simple the man was in little risk to his own person, why would you call him a hero? Do you have a a different definition of hero to me? That’s quite possible, of course.

What again, was your point?

That if a majority of gun owners don’t carry, that negates an argument in favour of gun ownership which says that carrying a gun is useful for protection, because, practically speaking, they aren’t. It doesn’t negate the protection* if they did* carry.

Think of it like, hypothetically, someone making the pro-gun argument that guns are useful for getting a near match to an exact colour of black you want for interior decorating. That might well be true, but if a majority of people don’t do that, it’s an argument that is invalidated by practicality. Irregardless of whether the guns would be useful to that end.

[Kable]

[quote=“Revenant_Threshold, post:426, topic:669101”]

It would seem as though being an experienced gun handler is not a surefire way to come to the correct understanding of how difficult the shot was given that, logically, at least one of the two of you must be incorrect.

OK, how about you buy yourself a squirt gun and see how how much practice it takes for you to shoot your reflection in a mirror, one handed even. I expect it won’t take much. Maybe even you can do it on the first try.

Which he also saw. We actually see him watching the same footage that we get to see, in fact, so he’s working off of the same information that we are. It seems as though your reasoning for believing him to be speaking in bad faith is that he disagrees with you. Is that correct?

I figure he’s just making good TV, maybe got prodded to say something like that, maybe he’s a real bad shot himself, hell if I know. I just know it’s an easy shot.

Given that you believe the shot was an easy one, and therefore that since it was so simple the man was in little risk to his own person, why would you call him a hero?

Cause he saved a lady from being murdered. If he did it from 50 yards he’d be a hero and a great shot too. He might actually be a great shot, but shooting a man a few feet away does not require a great shot. At least we can both agree that it was a good thing he was carrying his gun, cause he wouldn’t have stopped anything without it. Best of all, there didn’t have to be a majority of Walmart customers packing heat, to save a lady that wasn’t.

That if a majority of gun owners don’t carry, that negates an argument in favour of gun ownership which says that carrying a gun is useful for protection, because, practically speaking, they aren’t.

If a majority of hammer owners don’t carry their hammers, that negates an argument in favor of hammer ownership which says carrying a hammer is useful for driving nails. Because practically speaking they aren’t. OK, I get it now.:dubious:

[Bone]

@Revenant_Threshold

That if a majority of gun owners don’t carry, that negates an argument in favour of gun ownership which says that carrying a gun is useful for protection, because, practically speaking, they aren’t. It doesn’t negate the protection* if they did* carry.

Like I said earlier - this is a rather silly argument. Carrying a gun is useful for protection - if they are actually carried. If a gun is not being carried (or not available) it is not useful for protection. Duh?

Just because a person doesn’t carry on a given day, doesn’t negate anything about that person carrying on a different day. The protection argument holds whenever that person carries. Nothing is negated because nothing was asserted. That’s where your argument fails. In any event - the real argument is in favor of being permitted to carry - of having the choice. The choice that the majority of people in CA, NY, HA, NJ, IL do not have.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Kable

OK, how about you buy yourself a squirt gun and see how how much practice it takes for you to shoot your reflection in a mirror, one handed even. I expect it won’t take much. Maybe even you can do it on the first try.

Yep, probably. Put me in a life-or-death situation and have another person entangled with me and have that awkward firing position and add those characteristics which a squirt gun doesn’t have which an actual gun does (controlling recoil would seem to be a factor, I would guess), and perhaps I would not.

I figure he’s just making good TV, maybe got prodded to say something like that, maybe he’s a real bad shot himself, hell if I know. I just know it’s an easy shot.

On what basis, though? You’re casting some serious aspersions as to his character, based purely, seemingly, on your belief that you are correct. Do you treat any person who you believe is wrong as being dishonest in their arguments purely on that difference of opinion? I believe that you’re wrong, but i’m not claiming that therefore you’re not arguing in good faith. I’d need more to make such a serious claim than “I disagree with him.”

Cause he saved a lady from being murdered. If he did it from 50 yards he’d be a hero and a great shot too. He might actually be a great shot, but shooting a man a few feet away does not require a great shot. At least we can both agree that it was a good thing he was carrying his gun, cause he wouldn’t have stopped anything without it. Best of all, there didn’t have to be a majority of Walmart customers packing heat, to save a lady that wasn’t.

But it was easy, per you. He performed no difficult feat. It was an easy thing, at no risk to himself. That’s good - very good, even - but it’s not heroic. My £5 equally might go to save someone’s life, through providing medicine or a safe shelter. That doesn’t make it heroic.

If a majority of hammer owners don’t carry their hammers, that negates an argument in favor of hammer ownership which says carrying a hammer is useful for driving nails. Because practically speaking they aren’t. OK, I get it now.:dubious:

Ah, but the point you’re missing is that the point of carrying the gun, per the argument, is for protection. Carrying the hammer is not what the argument is for; the ability to drive in nails is what the argument is for.

So the correct analogy would be to say that, if hammer owners didn’t use their hammers to drive in nails, then an argument pro-hammer ownership based on their ability to drive in nails would be negated. Because hammer owners wouldn’t be doing that.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bone

Like I said earlier - this is a rather silly argument. Carrying a gun is useful for protection - if they are actually carried. If a gun is not being carried (or not available) it is not useful for protection. Duh?

That’s basically the claims i’m saying Lumpy is making, so I suppose if you want to call it a silly argument, that’s on him.

No, that’s not a total summation of my argument, though. My argument moves further than that - based on those claims, that if a majority of guns aren’t being carried, then an argument pro-gun ownership based on them being useful for protection is negated, because they’re not being used for that purpose. It’s a step further based on those claims, which, I agree, seem entirely possible and logical, respectively.

Just because a person doesn’t carry on a given day, doesn’t negate anything about that person carrying on a different day. The protection argument holds whenever that person carries. Nothing is negated because nothing was asserted. That’s where your argument fails. In any event - the real argument is in favor of being permitted to carry - of having the choice. The choice that the majority of people in CA, NY, HA, NJ, IL do not have.

Exactly! That is the real argument, though i’d add “ownership” to carrying as well. If we’re looking at whether people should be allowed to own guns and/or carry, and someone says “Guns are a useful tool for protection; therefore people should be allowed to own guns.”, then it’s perfectly reasonable to point to a supposed majority of gun owners who don’t carry and say “It doesn’t matter whether guns are a useful tool for protection or not, because a majority of gun owners don’t carry in the first place. Irregardless of whether that protection exists, a majority of owners don’t carry anyway, so they aren’t taking advantage of the chance.” Just as we might say for an argument in favour of gun ownership based on it being a useful tool for getting our walls just the right shade of black; it doesn’t matter if that’s true or not, if a majority of people aren’t actually taking advantage of it for that purpose.

The debate then goes onto what percentage of gun owners carrying would “make up” for those who don’t, considering any negative aspects of allowing gun ownership/carrying, which we’ve kinda been talking a bit about here but only a little.

[Bone]

@Revenant_Threshold

Exactly! That is the real argument, though i’d add “ownership” to carrying as well. If we’re looking at whether people should be allowed to own guns and/or carry, and someone says “Guns are a useful tool for protection; therefore people should be allowed to own guns.”, then it’s perfectly reasonable to point to a supposed majority of gun owners who don’t carry and say “It doesn’t matter whether guns are a useful tool for protection or not, because a majority of gun owners don’t carry in the first place. **Irregardless **of whether that protection exists, a majority of owners don’t carry anyway, so they aren’t taking advantage of the chance.”

(my bold)

First - the word irregardless should die.

Saying that guns don’t offer protection if they are unavailable is not an argument - it’s just a statement of fact. Are you making an argument against being allowed to carry? That’s what it sounds like. But like Kable, I must say you’re doing a very poor job of making your point clear. I suggest you ignore whatever anyone else has said, and make your own argument - either in favor of, or opposed to…something.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Revenant_Threshold

If a majority of gun owners agreed with you on this point, would you agree that it would invalidate an argument for gun ownership based on their protective quality provided?

Some people live in shitty neighborhoods and others aren’t as lazy as I am. It provides at least SOME protection to them, doesn’t it?

And having a gun in my home gives it at least SOME protective qualities. And sometimes you can see danger coming but not soon enough to run out to the gun shop and get a gun (if there are any left, see LA riots).

I don’t commonly carry for much the same reason I don’t carry a fire extinguisher in my car, its just not worth the effort FOR ME. There are some places I almost always carry (mostly barbecues) but unless I suspect I am heading into a dangerous situation (and I haven’t had anything like that happen in decades), I am content to have my guns in the safe and my gun locker at the range.

@Revenant_Threshold

Ah, not so. I’m not making an argument that, if gun owners don’t carry, therefore guns are not protective. I’m making an argument that an argument pro-gun-ownership based on their protective qualities is invalidated if most gun owners don’t carry.

The “sheepdog” type protection to society, the herd immunity, might be undermined by low carry rates (and there is no compelling evidence that concealed carry increases or decreases crime (at the most it causes a shift from confrontational crime to non-confrontational crime)) but it doesn’t undermine the protection it provides to the people who do carry.

[Kable]

At this point I think Revenant Threshold is either incapable of understanding, or purposely pretending not to understand any of the arguments he’s making. I lean towards the latter, and I’m content to leave it at that.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bone

(my bold)

First - the word irregardless should die.

My thinking on grammar is that by and large, so long as both parties understand what you mean, there isn’t a massive problem - but i’m perfectly willing to drop irregardless as a matter of courtesy.

Saying that guns don’t offer protection if they are unavailable is not an argument - it’s just a statement of fact. Are you making an argument against being allowed to carry? That’s what it sounds like. But like Kable, I must say you’re doing a very poor job of making your point clear. I suggest you ignore whatever anyone else has said, and make your own argument - either in favor of, or opposed to…something.

Yes, i’m making an argument against being allowed to carry. The problem is that that argument was predicated originally on Lumpy’s claims - I don’t personally know how many gun owners carry. I don’t know how many gun owners who own carriable guns don’t carry. So since my argument was based on what others originally claimed, or my interepretation of what they claimed, it makes sense to not ignore what others have said since what i’ve said is dependent on them.

To put it another way; my argument is based on Lumpy’s claims, not originated from myself.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Some people live in shitty neighborhoods and others aren’t as lazy as I am. It provides at least SOME protection to them, doesn’t it?

Again, I haven’t denied that carrying a gun can be useful for protection.

And having a gun in my home gives it at least SOME protective qualities. And sometimes you can see danger coming but not soon enough to run out to the gun shop and get a gun (if there are any left, see LA riots).

I’m specifying carried guns because the post I originally was replying to specified public situations. So again, i’m not denying that having a gun in the home has protective qualities, either.

I don’t commonly carry for much the same reason I don’t carry a fire extinguisher in my car, its just not worth the effort FOR ME. There are some places I almost always carry (mostly barbecues) but unless I suspect I am heading into a dangerous situation (and I haven’t had anything like that happen in decades), I am content to have my guns in the safe and my gun locker at the range.

Why barbecues, out of interest?

Anyway, it seems to me as though you would be an example of the possible majority of gun owners who don’t carry. Would it be fair to say that, for you, specifically, your ownership of a gun isn’t providing for you the kind of protection that a non-lazy or non-nicer-neighbourhood-living gun owner would enjoy?

The “sheepdog” type protection to society, the herd immunity, might be undermined by low carry rates (and there is no compelling evidence that concealed carry increases or decreases crime (at the most it causes a shift from confrontational crime to non-confrontational crime)) but it doesn’t undermine the protection it provides to the people who do carry.

I agree fully with this point.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Kable

At this point I think Revenant Threshold is either incapable of understanding, or purposely pretending not to understand any of the arguments he’s making. I lean towards the latter, and I’m content to leave it at that.

That’s a pity; it’s difficult to think of a way that I can convince you i’m genuine. Bone seems to think that we’re both equally bad at making our points, so perhaps that’s one - if we’re equally guilty of poor phrasing, then I can be as genuine as you are. On the other hand, since you’re willing to declare that that shooting range owner is likewise guilty of dishonest opinions based just on him disagreeing with you, I suppose so long as I don’t agree with you i’m equally certain to be dishonest in your eyes.

Either way, i’m happy to believe you’ve been arguing in good faith.

[Bone]

@Revenant_Threshold

Yes, i’m making an argument against being allowed to carry. The problem is that that argument was predicated originally on Lumpy’s claims - I don’t personally know how many gun owners carry. I don’t know how many gun owners who own carriable guns don’t carry. So since my argument was based on what others originally claimed, or my interepretation of what they claimed, it makes sense to not ignore what others have said since what i’ve said is dependent on them.

To put it another way; my argument is based on Lumpy’s claims, not originated from myself.

(my bold)
Then make your own argument. I haven’t yet seen it. Right now I’m inferring that it is something akin to “some people don’t carry, therefore no one should be allowed to carry”. It is shoddy at best, but you have done little help yourself in this regard.

I actually suggest you start a new thread and don’t rely on other’s statements to make your own argument. You can make whatever assumptions you wish on your own and they will be accepted or challenged on the merits.

That’s a pity; it’s difficult to think of a way that I can convince you i’m genuine. Bone seems to think that we’re both equally bad at making our points, so perhaps that’s one - if we’re equally guilty of poor phrasing, then I can be as genuine as you are.

No. Kable has been perfectly clear. You can affirm your genuineness by making your own argument. Do it like I did - set up your premises, state your conclusion.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bone

(my bold)
Then make your own argument. I haven’t yet seen it. Right now I’m inferring that it is something akin to “some people don’t carry, therefore no one should be allowed to carry”. It is shoddy at best, but you have done little help yourself in this regard.

That’s not my argument. It’s, essentially, that if a majority of people don’t carry, then the argument for gun ownership specifically that they are useful for protection is negated since that’s not what happens in practice. Only that particular argument is, I believe, negated; I don’t think it means that there are no good arguments for carrying. I don’t believe “some people don’t carry, therefore no one should be allowed to carry”. Just “If a majority of people don’t carry, then specifically the argument pro-gun ownership based on their protective quality is negated”. It doesn’t negate an argument for gun ownership that, let’s say for example, “Gun ownership is a good idea because people should generally be allowed to do what they want; freedom is the default position, and arguments are needed against that before arguments for it”. To give one example. So I agree, the argument you are inferring I am making is shoddy, but i’m not making that argument.

I actually suggest you start a new thread and don’t rely on other’s statements to make your own argument. You can make whatever assumptions you wish on your own and they will be accepted or challenged on the merits.

The whole point is that the assumptions that were made were Lumpy’s. Not mine. I am making arguments based on those assumptions. If we can’t make arguments based on other people’s assumptions, then there is no way to persuade someone that they might be incorrect, or that their assumptions lead to yet more conclusions, or, as I was doing in the first place, asking a question based on what someone else said.

No. Kable has been perfectly clear. You can affirm your genuineness by making your own argument. Do it like I did - set up your premises, state your conclusion.

I see the problem; I misinterpreted this particular point here; (my bolding);

Saying that guns don’t offer protection if they are unavailable is not an argument - it’s just a statement of fact. Are you making an argument against being allowed to carry? That’s what it sounds like.** But like Kable, I must say you’re doing a very poor job of making your point clear.** I suggest you ignore whatever anyone else has said, and make your own argument - either in favor of, or opposed to…something.

…to mean that you were saying that, like Kable, you thought I was doing a very poor job of making my point clear. Instead I assume what you meant was that, like** Kable**, you were saying that I was doing a poor job making my point clear. Apologies for the misinterpretation - I hope you can see how I might mistakenly interpret it that way.

Alright, here’s an argument, though effectively i’m just restating Lumpy’s points in the first two bits;

• Let’s imagine that the majority of gun owners don’t carry. Specifically, we’re talking about carriable guns, here, so putting aside any weapons which are not carried anyway.
• Again, let’s imagine that an argument is put forth that allowing gun ownership is a good idea based on their usefulness as a protective weapon.
• My conclusion would be that, regardless of whether guns are a useful protective weapon, which I do not concur with or deny, if a majority of gun owners who could carry don’t carry, then at the very least we cannot use the argument based on the protective quality of guns for those people, or people around them. This does not invalidate any other arguments pro-gun ownership; just this particular one.

[CannyDan]

I’ll try to mediate, or interpret, if I may. R.T., you decide if I’ve followed you, or completely misunderstood. Goes like this:

An argument is made by gun supporters (I’ll use those words in hopes they’re sufficiently neutral) that possession and carrying of weapons confers protection both individual and via herd immunity. But the majority of gun supporters do not carry (either because they own guns unsuitable for carry, or because they make a personal decision not to carry). This undermines the strength of the argument that carrying guns confers protection – the fact that even those who are in the best position to carry (by virtue of being gun owners and gun supporters) do not actually do so. Note that R.T. states clearly that he does not take this as evidence either for or against the fact of protection from carrying, merely that it seems to weaken or even moot the assertion that carrying confers protection.

Does that help clarify the issue? And did I understand you R.T.?

[Revenant_Threshold]

Yes, essentially. I would add in the middle there “This undermines the strength of the argument in favour of gun ownership that carrying guns confers protection”, but by and large that’s just for clarity. I think that last sentence in particular seems to get to the nub of what i’m clearing presenting poorly.

Not that I appear to be the best judge of clarity!