Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Texas Church Shooting: Forget Prayers, Send More Guns: Or else, Tryanny?

Texas Church Shooting: Forget Prayers, Send More Guns: Or else, Tryanny? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 01:40 PM
 
While guns being a check on government is the most important reason for the right, there are others. Like home/personal/family defense.

A gun was once called the great equalizer. When a rapist jumps a woman in the alley and she needs help in seconds, it is comforting to know the police will be there in minutes. And maybe it will just be a mugger. You only have to wait a few more seconds to find out.

And of course, it's her fault for walking in an alley. Even though as an American citizen, she is free to walk down any public street. She should probably dress more modestly too. And definitely not have the concealed carry permit and gun in her purse.

Hmm ... did I just find a reason why 51% of the population (minus underage girls) have reason to be allowed to buy guns? Even if it were changed to a privilege?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 01:52 PM
 
Why we got mace tho?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 01:53 PM
 
For criminals too dumb to wear a mask?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 02:45 PM
 
Tasers too
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 03:25 PM
 
Tigerlady DNA claw
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'd like to point out that the AR-15 was used for all these deadly shootings that came in the last 10 years. Maybe the assault weapons ban was effective?
Philosophically speaking, I'm pretty sure I'd choose an outright ban on handguns before a high-capacity magazine ban (which I consider the most restrictive aspect of the last AWB).

Of course a high-capacity magazine ban is achievable, whereas a handgun ban is not, but considering my position, I'm obviously going to argue that's not a good enough reason.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Tigerlady DNA claw


What's great about this is cops won't take it from you, and you get in the first chop as the assailant tries to process what the **** you're doing with a BBQ spatula.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 05:03 PM
 
Well, as we were taught day one of college by school security:


Good ol' keys in the fist, quick steel knuckles.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 05:12 PM
 
Unfortunately, that has a flaw, and it's a relatively serious one.

If the assailant can somehow manage to squeeze the keys together, it's really, really painful.

Better than nothing, but something to be aware of.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 05:16 PM
 
Well assuming they just grab your whole fist, maybe. It would be hard to squeeze the keys together if they were jammed in their eye.

How many guys were taught self-defense on day one of college, btw?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Philosophically speaking, I'm pretty sure I'd choose an outright ban on handguns before a high-capacity magazine ban (which I consider the most restrictive aspect of the last AWB).

Of course a high-capacity magazine ban is achievable, whereas a handgun ban is not, but considering my position, I'm obviously going to argue that's not a good enough reason.
Philosophy seems like the perfect thing to pair with thoughts and prayers. Just as effective.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 05:39 PM
 
All those non-lethal substitutes have a problem. If they fail to stop a bigger, stronger opponent, they're likely to make him angrier. Your chances of living through the night have just gone down. And those solutions are intended not to "stop" your opponent - that's what non-lethal means.

Why jump through hoops, imagining every alternative answer that might not work. Instead of using a solution we have, which does work. Someone attacking you for your money, virtue, or life suffers from a lead deficiency. Help him.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Philosophically speaking, I'm pretty sure I'd choose an outright ban on handguns before a high-capacity magazine ban (which I consider the most restrictive aspect of the last AWB).

Of course a high-capacity magazine ban is achievable, whereas a handgun ban is not, but considering my position, I'm obviously going to argue that's not a good enough reason.
One of many videos comparing magazine capacity.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Philosophy seems like the perfect thing to pair with thoughts and prayers. Just as effective.
This is unfair.

1) I'm attempting to make clear the extent to which I consider the importance of each.

2) I acknowledged it didn't have a real-world application.

3) Have I ever failed to acknowledge the toll in lives an armed citizenry collects?

I'll make it explicit. I support an armed citizenry. The blood of those it kills is on my hands.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
All those non-lethal substitutes have a problem. If they fail to stop a bigger, stronger opponent, they're likely to make him angrier. Your chances of living through the night have just gone down. And those solutions are intended not to "stop" your opponent - that's what non-lethal means.
Here's the amusing thing: You attack my alternatives for not being perfect when you willing submit to a worse problem created by the prevalence of guns. You will abide by preventable deaths to have guns, but not to restrain guns.

Second, your focus on the flaws in my alternatives likely doesn't come from a place of concern, but to try to justify having guns around. It took how many posts til you pulled out the self-defense card?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is unfair.

1) I'm attempting to make clear the extent to which I consider the importance of each.

2) I acknowledged it didn't have a real-world application.
It's a tedious tangent that kind of glosses over what we're discussing here.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
3) Have I ever failed to acknowledge the toll in lives an armed citizenry collects?

I'll make it explicit. I support an armed citizenry. The blood of those it kills is on my hands.
My criticism isn't that you don't accept the cost of your views. My criticism is I do not need to hear it for the umpteenth time. We know where we stand. We also know that neither of us will not be moving very far from out positions no matter what.

I welcome your constructive criticism on why a gun control measure would not work on the superficial level of preventing deaths.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Well, as we were taught day one of college by school security:


Good ol' keys in the fist, quick steel knuckles.
That strikes me awkward and time consuming.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 06:48 PM
 
how so? keep your keys are in your pocket, easily reachable. We were actually taught to have a key like the top photo well before we got to our car, doorway, or anyplace we'd be slowing down.

I don't still do this, I think security paranoia wore off a few months into college, but still, good tip for something you already have on you.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 06:51 PM
 
Getting it between your fingers strikes me as something requiring dexterity.

Contrast with pulling a gun/mace/taser, etc.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 06:52 PM
 
mace has a cover you have to remove. Guns require two hands for proper hold. I should hope a tazer has a safety.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's the amusing thing: You attack my alternatives for not being perfect when you willing submit to a worse problem created by the prevalence of guns. You will abide by preventable deaths to have guns, but not to restrain guns.

Second, your focus on the flaws in my alternatives likely doesn't come from a place of concern, but to try to justify having guns around. It took how many posts til you pulled out the self-defense card?
My post wasn't aimed at you (or any single person) - apologies if that was the impression.

Normally I'm happy to have a plethora of solutions. Each of which will have flaws. The problem is half the posters want to remove (or limit to the point of unavailability) the solution I favor. In fact, I'd be happy to concede all manner of imperfections in using guns, provided guns were not under attack. All other solutions welcome, if they are *in addition* to the solutions we have now.

Edit: the above was poorly written. By saying "provided guns were not under attack", I meant the *right* to own guns was under attack, vs it becoming a privilege. If the original statement is read literally, it doesn't have a clear meaning. No one is shooting other guns.
( Last edited by reader50; Nov 9, 2017 at 07:33 PM. Reason: clarity)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's a tedious tangent that kind of glosses over what we're discussing here.
My apologies.

I misread the OP and thought the argument was we should reinstate the ban, not questioning whether it was effective.

As I thought an opinion was being expressed I felt it was fair game to include my contrary one. Again, my apologies.


As to the question, a high capacity magazine ban would reduce deaths from mass shootings. I don't think there's much legitimate argument to be had there. The rest of the ban, as it was enacted, would have some effect, but not much.

Banning pistol grips would put a dent in what a mass shooter can accomplish.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Getting it between your fingers strikes me as something requiring dexterity.

Contrast with pulling a gun/mace/taser, etc.
For this reason, I've always heard the key idea as more of a prophylactic. Something to get ready before entering a potentially dangerous situation.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
While guns being a check on government is the most important reason for the right, there are others. Like home/personal/family defense.
Feeling safe ≠ being safer
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
A gun was once called the great equalizer. When a rapist jumps a woman in the alley and she needs help in seconds, it is comforting to know the police will be there in minutes. And maybe it will just be a mugger. You only have to wait a few more seconds to find out.
And maybe she suffers from depression and kills herself with that great equalizer. Or her toddler grabs a hold of it and accidentally shoots her. (At least the suicide scenario is far, far likelier than her fending off an attacker.)
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Hmm ... did I just find a reason why 51% of the population (minus underage girls) have reason to be allowed to buy guns? Even if it were changed to a privilege?
Anyone who satisfies the rules and has the proper training should be allowed to handle a gun. Personally, I think getting there should be pilot's license hard, because I want that person to know exactly what he or she is doing with a gun, knows how to handle, transport and store it.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
All those non-lethal substitutes have a problem. If they fail to stop a bigger, stronger opponent, they're likely to make him angrier. Your chances of living through the night have just gone down. And those solutions are intended not to "stop" your opponent - that's what non-lethal means.
You also have escalated the situation and if your attacker is armed as well, you might just get yourself killed instead of relieved of $100 and your credit cards.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As to the question, a high capacity magazine ban would reduce deaths from mass shootings. I don't think there's much legitimate argument to be had there. The rest of the ban, as it was enacted, would have some effect, but not much.

Banning pistol grips would put a dent in what a mass shooter can accomplish.
You said earlier that if it were up to you, you were in favor of strong regulations on hand guns, and I think this is the right place to start. Hand guns are responsible for the large share of gun-related deaths. If you could wave a magic wand, what would you do here?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Normally I'm happy to have a plethora of solutions. Each of which will have flaws. The problem is half the posters want to remove (or limit to the point of unavailability) the solution I favor. In fact, I'd be happy to concede all manner of imperfections in using guns, provided guns were not under attack. All other solutions welcome, if they are *in addition* to the solutions we have now.
That's not how you arrive at a compromise. Your condition that “guns not be under attack” (I'm not sure what that means) is so vague that you can stop talking pretty much right away.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 01:50 AM
 
Like most gun fans your approach is religious instead of scientific. Anything you come up with will be wrong because you started at the conclusion you want instead of being open to the right one.
Your 'solution' is also a very clear component of the problem you claim it solves. Which it doesn't since we are still witnessing and discussing the problem. Its not a solution at all.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 02:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You said earlier that if it were up to you, you were in favor of strong regulations on hand guns, and I think this is the right place to start. Hand guns are responsible for the large share of gun-related deaths. If you could wave a magic wand, what would you do here?
Kill everyone.

Just kidding. I bring everyone back.

Handguns are an example of what I meant by restrictions being made within the framework of an armed citizenry being a check on the government. While handguns can be used for that purpose, they don’t do it particularly well outside of some specific assassination scenarios. In theory, this separates handguns from the “rights” argument completely.

The one bugaboo is many methods of restriction involve lists, and if too many rifle owners are also handgun owners, those lists impact the utility of an armed citizenry as a check against the government.

I don’t think there’s a solution other than to be as restrictive as possible. Allow them only to those with a legitimate need. I’d prefer more permissive, but it’s really an all or nothing thing.

Of course, I’d use the wand to fix what’s responsible for a whole lot of this in the first place... mental health (I’m talking suicides, not mass shooters), prohibition, and poverty.

Now I kill everyone.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 03:17 AM
 
Would you be ok with things like regulations on how to store guns (including rifles), mandatory training (depending on weapon type) or a central registry?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 03:23 AM
 
In broad terms yes to all with handguns, no to all with longarms.

With longarms, there’s some wiggle on the first two depending on what the proposals ultimately entail.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 03:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Like most gun fans your approach is religious instead of scientific. Anything you come up with will be wrong because you started at the conclusion you want instead of being open to the right one.
I think it is out of fear that science invalidates some of their arguments (e. g. that owning guns makes people safer), which is why there has long been a ban on funding research on gun violence. You don't do that if you believe the facts are on your side.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 07:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For this reason, I've always heard the key idea as more of a prophylactic. Something to get ready before entering a potentially dangerous situation.
When ever I'm in a slightly dodgy environment- such as an empty London street after dark, I reflexively grip my keys this way. Probably pointless, but I get to feel like Wolverine, so bonus.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
How many guys were taught self-defense on day one of college, btw?
I really hope all guys going to college today are taught on day one to not rape/assault/be physically or sexually disrespectful to women.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Kill everyone.

Just kidding. I bring everyone back.

Handguns are an example of what I meant by restrictions being made within the framework of an armed citizenry being a check on the government. While handguns can be used for that purpose, they don’t do it particularly well outside of some specific assassination scenarios. In theory, this separates handguns from the “rights” argument completely.

The one bugaboo is many methods of restriction involve lists, and if too many rifle owners are also handgun owners, those lists impact the utility of an armed citizenry as a check against the government.

I don’t think there’s a solution other than to be as restrictive as possible. Allow them only to those with a legitimate need. I’d prefer more permissive, but it’s really an all or nothing thing.

Of course, I’d use the wand to fix what’s responsible for a whole lot of this in the first place... mental health (I’m talking suicides, not mass shooters), prohibition, and poverty.

Now I kill everyone.

Not to sound like a solution I offered up in another thread, and I've offered this one before too but theres an argument for allowing only women to own or perhaps carry handguns in public. I'm not aware of (m)any mass shootings perpetrated by women. I suspect they are less likely to be gung-ho and try to be heroes in the event of an active shooter but could still do good if the opportunity presents itself (though it seems that good guys with guns tend to just run away and hide no matter their gender) and of course they are far more likely to need an equaliser in the event of being attacked by a larger, stronger man.

I do suspect the self defence argument is much like the home defence argument and the statistics don't hold up in reality. Either they get disarmed by their assailant or they simply don't have the stomach to shoot someone point blank and the gun ends up being detrimantal in some way rather than helpful.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Hmm ... did I just find a reason why 51% of the population (minus underage girls) have reason to be allowed to buy guns? Even if it were changed to a privilege?
No, you didn't.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...nse-gun-use-2/

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.
And this:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...weapons-effect

In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle. The results showed that motorists were more likely to honk their horns if the confederate was driving a truck with a gun visible in the rear window than if the confederate was driving the same truck but with no gun. What is amazing about this study is that you would have to be pretty stupid to honk your horn at a driver with a military rifle in his truck—if you were thinking, that is! But people were not thinking—they just naturally honked their horns after seeing the gun. The mere presence of a weapon automatically triggered aggression.

Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] A nationally representative sample of over 2,000 American drivers found that those who had a gun in the car were significantly more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists (23% vs. 16%), aggressively follow another vehicle too closely (14% vs. 8%), or both (6.3% vs. 2.8%), even after controlling for many other factors related to aggressive driving (e.g., gender, age, urbanization, census region, driving frequency).
...
Several studies have replicated the weapons effect. A review of 56 published studies confirmed that the mere sight of weapons increases aggression in both angry and nonangry individuals.[10] Perhaps the weapons effect occurs because weapons are closely linked to aggression in our brains.
The mere presence of guns increases aggression and escalates a situation. It doesn't equalize anything, it makes an otherwise calm situation worse by triggering aggression in all parties.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 10:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
No, you didn't.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...nse-gun-use-2/



And this:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...weapons-effect



The mere presence of guns increases aggression and escalates a situation. It doesn't equalize anything, it makes an otherwise calm situation worse by triggering aggression in all parties.
I have questions about all these claims.

With the first, what percentage of the victims had guns? It can’t be all of them. If it is, that needs to get unpacked because it’s insane. 99% of the people who have them don’t use them?

I’d like to see percentages and methodology on the gun rack experiment.

I didn’t get to the driving one because I used my energy trying to figure out the first two, but they’re pay-to-play.

Lastly, I get the impression the weapons effect is a bit more iffy than implied.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I have questions about all these claims.

With the first, what percentage of the victims had guns? It can’t be all of them. If it is, that needs to get unpacked because it’s insane. 99% of the people who have them don’t use them?
I believe the point of the article was to disprove the assertion that guns frequently save lives. In that case, it wouldn't matter what percentage of victims had guns if all they wanted to prove is that the vast majority of incidents occur without firearms used for defense. Kind of a weak point, I agree.

But you're right, it would be much much more interesting to see how useful actually having a gun is in defending from an attack. A woman with a gun in her purse isn't going to be able to do much against a purse snatcher. A concealed weapon doesn't provide any deterrence against crimes, and I'd wager that in the case of a mugging, by the time it's obvious you're being mugged, you're too late to draw and fire before you get stabbed or shot yourself. And unless you're a police officer, you can't shoot someone running away from you, even if they've just mugged you.

I’d like to see percentages and methodology on the gun rack experiment.

I didn’t get to the driving one because I used my energy trying to figure out the first two, but they’re pay-to-play.

Lastly, I get the impression the weapons effect is a bit more iffy than implied.
It casts some doubt on the "An armed society is a polite society" parroting.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 04:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I believe the point of the article was to disprove the assertion that guns frequently save lives. In that case, it wouldn't matter what percentage of victims had guns if all they wanted to prove is that the vast majority of incidents occur without firearms used for defense. Kind of a weak point, I agree.

But you're right, it would be much much more interesting to see how useful actually having a gun is in defending from an attack. A woman with a gun in her purse isn't going to be able to do much against a purse snatcher. A concealed weapon doesn't provide any deterrence against crimes, and I'd wager that in the case of a mugging, by the time it's obvious you're being mugged, you're too late to draw and fire before you get stabbed or shot yourself. And unless you're a police officer, you can't shoot someone running away from you, even if they've just mugged you.



It casts some doubt on the "An armed society is a polite society" parroting.
My perhaps incorrect impression is the place where guns do make something of a difference is with home invasions. This is another reason I’m not as much of a purist on the issue when it comes to handguns. One only chooses a handgun in this scenario if there’s no other option, just like with stopping tyranny. The application for handguns is narrow, while at the same time they’re causing far and away the most damage. My arguments for maintaining the freedom exist, but except as they relate to restrictions unintentionally infringing on longarms, they’re not very good.

Outside of a home invasion, I agree a handgun is far from the panacea it’s made out to be. Especially if it’s not right on the person’s hip.

With the gun rack, my instincts tell me it’s more likely there’s a correlation equals causation error going on with the conclusion, rather than guns make people behave this counterintuitively.

I mean, let’s repeat the test but make it a BMW and a rusted out shitbox instead of a gun or no. The results will be the same. Is the BMW making people more aggressive, or is it causing people think the driver is a douchebag, which is what’s making them aggressive?
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 06:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With the gun rack, my instincts tell me it’s more likely there’s a correlation equals causation error going on with the conclusion, rather than guns make people behave this counterintuitively.
I think the one thing all these stats put together tell us is that real human behaviour when it comes to guns is highly counterintuitive.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 07:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think it is out of fear that science invalidates some of their arguments (e. g. that owning guns makes people safer), which is why there has long been a ban on funding research on gun violence. You don't do that if you believe the facts are on your side.
We’ve touched on this topic before. Let me take another swing.

Let’s say the CDC does a study which finds out guns make people less safe, which of course they do because they’re, like, ****ing guns. That’s literally what they’re for.

So far, the CDC hasn’t done anything wrong.

One group takes the study and it doesn’t change their opinion because they already thought guns were really, really dangerous. Which they are. Like I said. They’re ****ing guns.

The other group takes the study and it doesn’t change their opinion because the whole goddamn point is guns are really, really dangerous.

Then we have this wacky-time with votes and lobbyists and gavels. Before you know it, out shits some public policy.

What the CDC did wrong was pick a group. Unless they can scientifically validate one of those two value judgments to be better, it’s not science, it’s a political opinion.

That’s not what they’re there for, and they got spanked for it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I think the one thing all these stats put together tell us is that real human behaviour when it comes to guns is highly counterintuitive.
But not necessarily wrong.

Want to place bets on whether you’d think the real version of the guy (you know it’s a guy) with a rifle in the rack sitting at a green light is a douchebag?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let’s say the CDC does a study which finds out guns make people less safe, which of course they do because they’re, like, ****ing guns. That’s literally what they’re for.
That's not what they are for, and that is not how science is done. Plus, who said to only fund the CDC?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So far, the CDC hasn’t done anything wrong.
If the CDC funds opinion pieces rather than proper research, then as a scientific funding organization they have done something wrong. If the research is at odds with what you incorrectly call a “value judgement”, then the “value judgement” is incorrect. Claims such as “guns make me more/less safe during home invasions” are objective questions that have an answer.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What the CDC did wrong was pick a group. Unless they can scientifically validate one of those two value judgments to be better, it’s not science, it’s a political opinion.
Science is not about value judgements or political processes, science is about establishing objective facts. The only thing science should side with is the truth, not some (imaginary) group.

People should not be afraid of the best approximation of the truth aka science here, the only reason I can fathom is that some people are afraid of the outcomes. Citizens should be aware of the consequences of their decisions as best as possible, and politicians (as well as everyone else) should refrain from knowingly make false statements. Preventing research just means purposefully keeping people in the dark about things, and maintaining a level of ambiguity that allows them to say things that are at best conjectures and not facts.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 01:35 PM
 
An observation about the rifle visible in truck. This may have unintentionally become an observer bias test. ie - triggering a "redneck response". If the driver is stereotypically perceived to be rude and likely to inconsiderately sit around when the light changes, then the person behind is more likely to honk.

I suggest repeating the test with some different visible flag. Like oversized antlers on the truck. Something easily visible from behind. Then record if the person behind honks.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
An observation about the rifle visible in truck. This may have unintentionally become an observer bias test. ie - triggering a "redneck response". If the driver is stereotypically perceived to be rude and likely to inconsiderately sit around when the light changes, then the person behind is more likely to honk.

I suggest repeating the test with some different visible flag. Like oversized antlers on the truck. Something easily visible from behind. Then record if the person behind honks.
This was my suggestion. Use a BMW and beater. Bet the results are the same.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That's not what they are for, and that is not how science is done. Plus, who said to only fund the CDC?

If the CDC funds opinion pieces rather than proper research, then as a scientific funding organization they have done something wrong. If the research is at odds with what you incorrectly call a “value judgement”, then the “value judgement” is incorrect. Claims such as “guns make me more/less safe during home invasions” are objective questions that have an answer.

Science is not about value judgements or political processes, science is about establishing objective facts. The only thing science should side with is the truth, not some (imaginary) group.

People should not be afraid of the best approximation of the truth aka science here, the only reason I can fathom is that some people are afraid of the outcomes. Citizens should be aware of the consequences of their decisions as best as possible, and politicians (as well as everyone else) should refrain from knowingly make false statements. Preventing research just means purposefully keeping people in the dark about things, and maintaining a level of ambiguity that allows them to say things that are at best conjectures and not facts.
I think I somehow managed to effectively communicate zero points with that last post.

Is my first sentence being construed as about what the CDC is for? It’s about what guns are for. They’re for killing, so having them around makes one unsafe. I expect scientific inquiry to bear this out.

I mentioned the CDC because they were the only federal agency directly affected by the policy. The FBI and the NIH do research on guns, and they were never defunded (though I understand the NIH got a cold feet for awhile).

If the data shows guns make me less safe during a home invasion, then that’s what’s been determined by objective scientific inquiry. It is not a value judgement. I have no objection, and that’s what I said.

“Let’s say the CDC does a study which finds out guns make people less safe... So far, the CDC hasn’t done anything wrong.”

The value judgement is the opinion the study means guns should be further restricted. The CDC went on the record they intended to use the results of their research to argue guns should be restricted. This is what got them in trouble.

It wouldn’t have happened if the CDC had stuck to objective scientific inquiry, and it’s why they were singled out for defunding.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My perhaps incorrect impression is the place where guns do make something of a difference is with home invasions. This is another reason I’m not as much of a purist on the issue when it comes to handguns.
Everything I've read about home defense says a handgun is a terrible idea. Accuracy in the dark, penetration of interior walls, and low stopping power make them horrible choices for stopping a charging intruder in a dark hallway with your kid's bedroom behind them.

Plus, if you're a responsible owner, your gun is locked in a safe, unloaded, and possibly with some sort of magazine or trigger lock in place. Every second you spend getting the gun ready to fire is another second that an intruder has to find and overwhelm you with his fists, a knife, or another gun. On the filp side, if your gun is easily accessible, it's probably just going to be stolen when you're not home.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
One group takes the study and it doesn’t change their opinion because they already thought guns were really, really dangerous. Which they are. Like I said. They’re ****ing guns.

The other group takes the study and it doesn’t change their opinion because the whole goddamn point is guns are really, really dangerous.
You left out the group of people that insist that they are much, much safer around guns. They may acknowledge that guns are dangerous, but they are insistent that their lives are much safer if they have a gun nearby. The problem is that the Venn diagram of this group and the one that denies science has a pretty significant overlap, so any accurate, reputable, perfectly-executed study that produced results counter to their near-religious beliefs would fall on deaf ears.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 06:17 PM
 
^^^

The best firearm for home defense is a shotgun for sure.

OAW
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 06:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In broad terms yes to all with handguns, no to all with longarms.

With longarms, there’s some wiggle on the first two depending on what the proposals ultimately entail.
Long arms are for killing the bad guys up to 300 yards and and more depending on mods. I can 'dispatch' some one up to 300 yards right now. I've been to the firing range several times to improve my skills. I had to work work with my 45 much more than the 22long to have the accuracy I wanted.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 06:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Normally I'm happy to have a plethora of solutions. Each of which will have flaws. The problem is half the posters want to remove (or limit to the point of unavailability) the solution I favor. In fact, I'd be happy to concede all manner of imperfections in using guns, provided guns were not under attack. All other solutions welcome, if they are *in addition* to the solutions we have now.
You're ignoring my point. You seem to very critical of the shortcomings of non-lethal means of self-defense, but not critical of the short comings of having som many guns in our country.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My apologies.

I misread the OP and thought the argument was we should reinstate the ban, not questioning whether it was effective.
No you read right. Perhaps I read wrong.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
As to the question, a high capacity magazine ban would reduce deaths from mass shootings. I don't think there's much legitimate argument to be had there. The rest of the ban, as it was enacted, would have some effect, but not much.

Banning pistol grips would put a dent in what a mass shooter can accomplish.
I mean, I'll take any single thing I can get but it's pretty clear that between the NRA and the pro-gun crowd there's no proposal to their liking.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:55 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,