Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[StrangeSox]

I'll note again that, in Alpha's case, his gun made zero difference in the situation.

 

But I'll also point out that I see the proliferation of guns in the streets as part-and-parcel of the same problem. We allow you and Alpha easy access to handguns, that means 'gangbangers' get easier access, too. I believe that if we had sane gun control laws, you wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about armed gangs roving the streets, or mentally disturbed children stealing their parents' guns and going on killing sprees.

 

I'm not sure how you can say "so what?" to taking the statistically-more-likely-to-survive path of not having a gun, but I'll add that what you're saying seems to be exactly in line with the machismo vigilante mindset that's part of the problem as well. What good is it dying fighting if you could have lived otherwise? What good is it allowing more and more guns and 'mistakes' that lead to more Treyvon Martins and Jordan Davis's?

[Jenksismyhero]

The key thing here...even if every element of data pushes you the other way, you would make the emotional choice. It's right there. Even if I could show you that having a gun makes you 5, or 10, or 100, or 1000 times more likely to be hurt/killed in that case...you'd rather take the hero/vigilante way out. Nothing can overpower the emotion, the dream of using the gun in a certain circumstance.

 

That's why I keep calling it the vigilante fantasy.

 

Except that's an inaccurate term because being a vigilante is more about revenge and actively seeking out justice as opposed to just defending yourself. What i'm talking about is the natural instinct to survive and to use any means necessary. It's not at all unreasonable to believe that you can do that if you have means to protect yourself. And I would suspect that again, most people would want to feel that way as opposed to being at the mercy of a person intending to do you or others harm.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I have a basic instinct of survival. A part of that is "not wanting to be shot at with deadly weapons." Part of what we can do to reduce your odds of being shot at with deadly weapons is to...reduce the availability of deadly weapons.

 

I don't have a basic instinct to shoot back.

[StrangeSox]

Except that's an inaccurate term because being a vigilante is more about revenge and actively seeking out justice as opposed to just defending yourself. What i'm talking about is the natural instinct to survive and to use any means necessary. It's not at all unreasonable to believe that you can do that if you have means to protect yourself. And I would suspect that again, most people would want to feel that way as opposed to being at the mercy of a person intending to do you or others harm.

 

You've admitted that you'd rather die trying to be the gun-toting hero than take the statistically-more-likely-to-live route. That is what is wrong with our "gun culture."

[Steve9347]

Can we assume that the guns that the bangers in Alpha's story were all illegal? None were acquired legally? Perhaps with fewer guns in circulation, fewer guns would have been available, and all the sudden 6 guns turns to 1 or something. You can't just assume that if you remove Alpha's gun you aren't removing other guns.

[Soxbadger]

Can we assume that the guns that the bangers in Alpha's story were all illegal? None were acquired legally? Perhaps with fewer guns in circulation, fewer guns would have been available, and all the sudden 6 guns turns to 1 or something. You can't just assume that if you remove Alpha's gun you aren't removing other guns.

 

Yes we can. Havent you heard that criminals will get guns no matter what and the black market is like a 24 hour Walmart.

 

What I find the most ironic is the people who say how easy it is for criminals to do things, are generally people who dont break any laws and have no experience with black markets.

 

Its bad logic. Because if it was good logic, the same people would be arguing that drugs should be legal, because making drugs legal wont make them easier to get. Yet when it comes to drugs, everyone agrees that if they are legal, they are easier to get. Its just common sense.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll note again that, in Alpha's case, his gun made zero difference in the situation.

 

But I'll also point out that I see the proliferation of guns in the streets as part-and-parcel of the same problem. We allow you and Alpha easy access to handguns, that means 'gangbangers' get easier access, too. I believe that if we had sane gun control laws, you wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about armed gangs roving the streets, or mentally disturbed children stealing their parents' guns and going on killing sprees.

 

I'm not sure how you can say "so what?" to taking the statistically-more-likely-to-survive path of not having a gun, but I'll add that what you're saying seems to be exactly in line with the machismo vigilante mindset that's part of the problem as well. What good is it dying fighting if you could have lived otherwise? What good is it allowing more and more guns and 'mistakes' that lead to more Treyvon Martins and Jordan Davis's?

 

Because it's easy to look at things after the fact and determine whether an act was smart or not. In the moment that s*** doesn't matter. I'm sure Alpha was scared as hell and felt slightly better about the fact that he had a shotgun to fight back with if it was truly necessary. I think it's an asshole move quite frankly to not only question that, but call him idiotic for thinking that way, which is what you're doing without being direct about it.

 

And what are the statistics exactly? I haven't seen any numbers.

[Jenksismyhero]

I have a basic instinct of survival. A part of that is "not wanting to be shot at with deadly weapons." Part of what we can do to reduce your odds of being shot at with deadly weapons is to...reduce the availability of deadly weapons.

 

I don't have a basic instinct to shoot back.

 

Good for you. But you don't have the right to force me to believe that. I'm good with a gun and I'm confident in my ability. I'm not someone who has never fired a gun before thinking I can take on 50 gang members like a video game.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Can we assume that the guns that the bangers in Alpha's story were all illegal? None were acquired legally? Perhaps with fewer guns in circulation, fewer guns would have been available, and all the sudden 6 guns turns to 1 or something. You can't just assume that if you remove Alpha's gun you aren't removing other guns.

By the way...Congress has enacted legislation preventing the FBI or ATF from actually looking into this question and trying to track down systematically what fraction of guns were purchased legally or whether there are specific dealers who are sourcing large numbers of guns used in crimes.

[Balta1701]

And what are the statistics exactly? I haven't seen any numbers.

Again, the CDC is explicitly prohibited by Congress from doing research into that question, and consequently no one else in the government will fund that research.

[Jenksismyhero]

Can we assume that the guns that the bangers in Alpha's story were all illegal? None were acquired legally? Perhaps with fewer guns in circulation, fewer guns would have been available, and all the sudden 6 guns turns to 1 or something. You can't just assume that if you remove Alpha's gun you aren't removing other guns.

 

And that's fine and i've said i'm in favor of some more restrictions and generally making it more difficult to acquire guns. But at some point that restriction starts impeding on my use of guns and my want to have some protection, whether you believe that want of protection is reasonable or not. For example, forcing me to keep my guns locked in a safe with my ammo locked in another safe is a bulls*** restriction to combat the .000000000000001% chance someone will steal that gun and use it.

 

[StrangeSox]

I have no doubt that Alpha was scared. I don't deny that. But I'll point out that his gun was useless and played zero role in his situation. Had he started firing, he would have then had to deal with several armed assailants. Instead, he called the police and waited and didn't suffer any harm.

 

I also have no doubt that the easy access to guns for "law abiding citizens" also means that the people that Alpha was threatened by also have easy access to guns. My desire to restrict Alpha's guns (though I personally wouldn't care about personal shotgun ownership, which is the best home defense weapon anyway) comes from a desire to keep them out of the hands of people who might commit criminal acts. We can't know ahead of time who those people are, because very few people are "pure evil" criminals that we can screen out. Most people are law-abiding citizens right up to the point that they shoot someone. That means we need to make guns in general less available if we actually want to do something about the prevalence of gun violence in this country. If you feel that the current level of gun violence and these massacres are an acceptable cost to fulfill your desire to be a gun-hero, then okay.

[Jenksismyhero]

Again, the CDC is explicitly prohibited by Congress from doing research into that question, and consequently no one else in the government will fund that research.

 

So why are you saying it's a fact that you're increasing the risk of death when you have nothing to back that up?

[Steve9347]

By the way...Congress has enacted legislation preventing the FBI or ATF from actually looking into this question and trying to track down systematically what fraction of guns were purchased legally or whether there are specific dealers who are sourcing large numbers of guns used in crimes.

Great idea.

[Balta1701]

And that's fine and i've said i'm in favor of some more restrictions and generally making it more difficult to acquire guns. But at some point that restriction starts impeding on my use of guns and my want to have some protection, whether you believe that want of protection is reasonable or not. For example, forcing me to keep my guns locked in a safe with my ammo locked in another safe is a bulls*** restriction to combat the .000000000000001% chance someone will steal that gun and use it.

Actually...this one I can say safely you're clearly underestimating those chances...if you're talking about having anyone living in your house. By far the most common use of guns to kill a person is suicide. When you have a gun in your house, the chances of it being used by someone for suicide is huge, if you have a family around. It happens 100x more per year than a successful defense against a home invasion.

 

When the Israeli army stopped allowing their soldiers to take their weapons home with them, their suicide rates dropped by 60%. Having a gun around makes what would otherwise be a fleeting decision into a potentially life threatening situation.

[Balta1701]

So why are you saying it's a fact that you're increasing the risk of death when you have nothing to back that up?

I said I can't say that specifically about the case you're citing. You can't either...but that's not the point. The point is...you don't care. You explicitly said you wouldn't care if it made the situation worse. You'd rather go down fighting.

 

I can site specific data for the case of a crime on the street. In that case there's at least one solid, recent study out there from Pennsylvania that says if you're carrying a gun and someone tries to rob you, you're more likely to be hurt/killed than if you're not carrying the gun by several times. That sort of standard could easily apply to home invasion cases...

 

But you specifically said you don't care. Nothing will convince you.

[StrangeSox]

And that's fine and i've said i'm in favor of some more restrictions and generally making it more difficult to acquire guns. But at some point that restriction starts impeding on my use of guns and my want to have some protection, whether you believe that want of protection is reasonable or not. For example, forcing me to keep my guns locked in a safe with my ammo locked in another safe is a bulls*** restriction to combat the .000000000000001% chance someone will steal that gun and use it.

Name me a restriction you actually support.

[Jenksismyhero]

I have no doubt that Alpha was scared. I don't deny that. But I'll point out that his gun was useless and played zero role in his situation. Had he started firing, he would have then had to deal with several armed assailants. Instead, he called the police and waited and didn't suffer any harm.

 

I also have no doubt that the easy access to guns for "law abiding citizens" also means that the people that Alpha was threatened by also have easy access to guns. My desire to restrict Alpha's guns (though I personally wouldn't care about personal shotgun ownership, which is the best home defense weapon anyway) comes from a desire to keep them out of the hands of people who might commit criminal acts. We can't know ahead of time who those people are, because very few people are "pure evil" criminals that we can screen out. Most people are law-abiding citizens right up to the point that they shoot someone. That means we need to make guns in general less available if we actually want to do something about the prevalence of gun violence in this country. If you feel that the current level of gun violence and these massacres are an acceptable cost to fulfill your desire to be a gun-hero, then okay.

 

I think there will always be these types of massacres and there's nothing you can do to prevent them. So, to some extent my answer is yes. You take away guns, these crazies will just find another means of achieving their goal.

 

I still think it's bulls*** to label my desire for protection in a life or death moment a "gun hero," but whatever.

[StrangeSox]

You specifically said you'd rather die gunning even if no gun was the statistically better option.

 

I also reject your defeatist attitude that there is simply nothing we can do. Other countries have done something.

[Soxbadger]

I think there will always be these types of massacres and there's nothing you can do to prevent them. So, to some extent my answer is yes. You take away guns, these crazies will just find another means of achieving their goal.

 

The other means generally take far more sophistication and intelligence. The reason guns are dangerous is because it allows someone who doesnt have that intelligence to inflict massive damage.

 

You can extrapolate your argument into "Why not let Iran have a nuclear weapon, they can kill people without them."

 

Well that is true, the nuke just makes it a lot easier.

[bmags]

I think there will always be these types of massacres and there's nothing you can do to prevent them. So, to some extent my answer is yes. You take away guns, these crazies will just find another means of achieving their goal.

 

I still think it's bulls*** to label my desire for protection in a life or death moment a "gun hero," but whatever.

 

And yet america leads the world in them.

[Jenksismyhero]

I said I can't say that specifically about the case you're citing. You can't either...but that's not the point. The point is...you don't care. You explicitly said you wouldn't care if it made the situation worse. You'd rather go down fighting.

 

I can site specific data for the case of a crime on the street. In that case there's at least one solid, recent study out there from Pennsylvania that says if you're carrying a gun and someone tries to rob you, you're more likely to be hurt/killed than if you're not carrying the gun by several times. That sort of standard could easily apply to home invasion cases...

 

But you specifically said you don't care. Nothing will convince you.

 

Oh that's bulls***. In your own home you have the advantage.

 

I'm not talking about a situation where you're in a crowded plaza and someone with a gun starts shooting people and you want to play the hero. I'm talking about you're in your home and feel your life is being threatened. Two completely different scenarios. In your mind it doesn't matter, you should just lie on the ground and pray you don't get shot. I say f*** that, I should have the right to protect myself. I think it's bulls*** that you would judge someone on their actions in what they believe to be a truly life or death situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

Name me a restriction you actually support.

 

Read about page 2-3 of this thread. I laid out what i'm ok with. I've just been arguing I think your fooling yourself if you think that'll stop this stuff from happening.

[StrangeSox]

Also the proliferation of guns means life and death scenarios are more common. These are strongly linked.

[StrangeSox]

Oh that's bulls***. In your own home you have the advantage.

 

I'm not talking about a situation where you're in a crowded plaza and someone with a gun starts shooting people and you want to play the hero. I'm talking about you're in your home and feel your life is being threatened. Two completely different scenarios. In your mind it doesn't matter, you should just lie on the ground and pray you don't get shot. I say f*** that, I should have the right to protect myself. I think it's bulls*** that you would judge someone on their actions in what they believe to be a truly life or death situation.

I'm sure balts will be happy to provide you with the data on the likelihood of you shooting your child to death.