The Flip Side of an Armed Public

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

To the woman who was shot in the leg, I think she would say it was serious, but I doubt the guy who did it will receive a felony conviction.

Fair enough. To gage the frequency of cases like this, you would have to look up gun accident statistics. I have not looked into them, but I'm sure they exist.

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying you're totally off-base with this. I'm only saying that googling newspaper articles will never give you good-enough data to make a case like this. At best, it will give you ideas on where to look for solid statistics. But it's not a substitute for such statistics.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

That's fine, but you have to make up your mind what you're talking about.

Why? It's about the journey, not the destination.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Because I'm bossy, so I like to tell people what to do.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying you're totally off-base with this. I'm only saying that googling newspaper articles will never give you good-enough data to make a case like this. At best, it will give you ideas on where to look for solid statistics. But it's not a substitute for such statistics.

Fair enough.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Although I generally agree with you that David tends to overstate his case for gun rights

Let me offer this comment:
obviously, I have been obsessive and redundant
in addressing this issue, here and in other fora,
presenting the same thing 1000 different ways,
but I wonder whether it is posssible to overstate
the concept that a citizen shoud possess himself
of competent emergency equipment ?

The denial of that position
is that it is better to be HELPLESS
in the face of a possible emergency.

David

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Correct. My thesis here is that possession of a firearm a) produces a false sense of security resulting in potentially bad decision making and b) encourages people who otherwise are not prone to criminal activity to resort to the gun early instead of as a solution of last resort. The 70 year old man who drew on a car who honked at him and passed him would have probably just stewed in his car if he hadn't had a gun. The engineer who was angry that the driver in front of him was on the cell phone would have just driven on, but he was angry and had a handy gun to make his point. Were both of these people momentarily driven to stupidity by anger?

Yes, but stupidity and firearms is a bad mix.

As a thought experiment, Engineer:
let us imagine that u chance to read an obituary
of a decedent who was torn apart by predatory animals
(e.g., a cougar or pack of dogs, etc.). If it says that decedent
was not considered very intelligent, that he failed in high school
and that he had no interest in firearms,
woud u take satisfaction from his state of helplessness during his final living moments ?

or if u read of a homosexual (who was rejected from admission
to all colleges, on the basis of low mental abilities) who was beaten to death,
will u take pleasure on reading that he was unarmed at the end of his life ?

If his spirit returned on Halloween, or on El Dia de los Muertos,
and bewailed his final helplessness, lamenting his choice against joining the Pink Pistols,
woud u tell him:
"O no -- not for YOU! Stupidity and firearms is a bad mix" ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You miss the point (perhaps intentionally). While you can easily posit cases of people being injured or dying because of the lack of an overpowering means of self defense, I can point to plenty of real cases where people were injured or died because a gun was present. Do you take great satisfaction that a young woman was killed because her cousin did not like her choice of Easter attire? You wave this off saying that the perpetrator was a nut case and should be shipped out of the country, but the reality is that without the casual presence of a gun this death would not have occurred. Without a gun near to hand, that engineer would not have shot that cell phone using lady. You can correctly blame the engineer and hold him accountable for his actions, but you also have to recognize that if his gun had not been right at hand, he'd have likely just driven by, maybe flipping her off. My statement is that the overall health of the entire population is improved by less guns, not more.

3 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Yes, because firearms provide protection against snake venom....

Sometimes the mind just boggles at what passes for "logic" in some people.

The basic idea is to shoot the snakes BEFORE they bite people, I think most people would have picked up on that...

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer, I think you may have misread the bulk of David's posts, he has consistently objected to concern for the overall health of the entire population and focused on the rights of the individual.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

You miss the point (perhaps intentionally).

I take exception to your characterization.

engineer wrote:

While you can easily posit cases of people being injured or dying
because of the lack of an overpowering means of self defense,
I can point to plenty of real cases where people were injured
or died because a gun was present.

OF COURSE, that is the reason that we all have guns. That is what guns r for.
What do u think ?

engineer wrote:

Do you take great satisfaction that a young woman was killed
because her cousin did not like her choice of Easter attire?

Your link said it was because of the misdirected attentions of a husband. It was a fight.

engineer wrote:

You wave this off saying that the perpetrator was a nut case
and should be shipped out of the country, but the reality is that
without the casual presence of a gun this death would not have occurred.

As an engineer, u must understand the error
of making overbroad assumptions; u mean to tell us that before
guns were invented, fighting people did not kill one another??

U tell us, with great assurance that neither of them woud have
grabbed a blunt or sharp object in the fight, if no gun were present?
A gun is only a tool.

engineer wrote:

Without a gun near to hand, that engineer would not have shot
that cell phone using lady. You can correctly blame the engineer
and hold him accountable for his actions, but you also have to
recognize that if his gun had not been right at hand, he'd have
likely just driven by, maybe flipping her off. My statement is that
the overall health of the entire population is improved by less guns, not more.

Even if we were to assume for the moment, that u were correct about that: each citizen must decide
whether he will choose to be helpless, defenseless in the face of possible future abuse that might kill him,
and then prepare himself according to his judgment in that matter.

He will subsequently be held accountable for his acts.

Y did u ignore my thought experiments ?
No comment ?

David

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

engineer, I think you may have misread the bulk of David's posts,
he has consistently objected to concern for the overall health of the entire population
and focused on the rights of the individual.

Your point is very well taken, Bob.
I have done that,
altho I believe that the pro-gun freedom position prevails as to the general populace also,
but I have a lesser ability to argue on the basis of statistics.

Dr. John Lott can do it; he has DONE it, but he is much better informed on statistics than I have been.

Thank u for your point.
Thums UP, for u!

David

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Yes, because firearms provide protection against snake venom....

Sometimes the mind just boggles at what passes for "logic" in some people.

The basic idea is to shoot the snakes BEFORE they bite people, I think most people would have picked up on that...

SO STIPULATED, Gunga!

David

0 Replies

So if the intended victim as described in the cases presented by engineer sees they are about to be shot, then they quickly pull out their gun first and shoot the would-be murderer. Is that right Dave ?

Wasnt that the wild west and you decided against it as counter-productive? When you went to town, some towns insisted on signing your guns in at the sherrifs office.

If you are insecure about your personal defence no amount of guns is going to make you feel safe. What if they have a bigger gun ? What if they pull it out faster ? What if they are too quick to shoot ? Any sexual innuendo is entirely accidental.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

U tell us, with great assurance that neither of them woud have
grabbed a blunt or sharp object in the fight, if no gun were present?
A gun is only a tool.

There are many instances, such as driving in your car, when your only threat is from a gun. A knife just wont cut it.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
U tell us, with great assurance that neither of them woud have
grabbed a blunt or sharp object in the fight, if no gun were present?
A gun is only a tool.
There are many instances, such as driving in your car, when your only threat is from a gun.
A knife just wont cut it.

So we are safe from other cars ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

So we are safe from other cars ?

This is called avoidance. You are relatively safe from other cars when you are surrounded by a car. But you are also safe from knives etc..it is only a gun that can penetrate your safety and there are other situations too.

You have a chance of struggling if your attacker has a knife. You have a chance of running. None of these are options if your opponent has a gun.

3 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

So if the intended victim as described in the cases presented
by engineer sees they are about to be shot, then they quickly pull
out their gun first and shoot the would-be murderer. Is that right Dave ?

That taken together with considerations of available cover, yes, Ionus.
It is not distinct in principle from your military training;
i.e., it is better if u kill him, rather than if he kills u.
If there is a difference between defending your life
when attacked by an enemy of the State
as distinct from a common robber or burglar,
that 's more than I know.

Ionus wrote:

Wasnt that the wild west and you decided against it as counter-productive?

Yes it was NOT; most of it was made up fony sensationalism to sell what were called "dime novels".

Ionus wrote:

When you went to town, some towns insisted on signing your guns in at the sherrifs office.

Signing? Not likely, but there were such ordinances in some places.

Ionus wrote:

If you are insecure about your personal defence no amount of guns is going to make you feel safe.

Ionus, that is FALSE.
I know that from personal experience.
Beginning when I was 8, I was home alone quite a lot.
We owned some commercial establishments to whose administration
my family was attending, getting home around 9 or 10 PM.

I felt uneasy qua how I 'd defend my place, if that became necessary. (It did not.)
When I came into possession of a small framed .38 revolver, my anxiety ended.
I knew that whereas before, I had nothing better than a kitchen knife for defense,
then I had at least SOMETHING decent.
That felt good, depite your vu to the contrary.

Ionus wrote:

What if they have a bigger gun ?
What if they pull it out faster ? What if they are too quick to shoot ? Any sexual innuendo is entirely accidental.

My thought at the time was that if a criminal breaks in I can blast him; do the best I coud.

David

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

So we are safe from other cars ?

Ionus wrote:

This is called avoidance. You are relatively safe from other cars when you are surrounded by a car.

In America, we 've had fatal collisions thereof.

Ionus wrote:

But you are also safe from knives etc..
it is only a gun that can penetrate your safety and there are other situations too.

You have a chance of struggling if your attacker has a knife.
You have a chance of running. None of these are options if your opponent has a gun.

I was at a dinner last nite few of whose attenders were able to run much.
When I got out of the hospital after surgery in 2005,
I was hardly able to stand up at all, let alone all this struggling that u have in mind.

I infer that u assume that there is some possibility
of preventing the bad guy from having a gun. That 's nonsense.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

engineer wrote:
Do you take great satisfaction that a young woman was killed
because her cousin did not like her choice of Easter attire?
Your link said it was because of the misdirected attentions of a husband. It was a fight.

It was a fight when the victim was leaving the house and had already got in her car? Do you not believe that no gun -> no death?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

engineer wrote:
You wave this off saying that the perpetrator was a nut case and should be shipped out of the country, but the reality is that
without the casual presence of a gun this death would not have occurred.
As an engineer, u must understand the error
of making overbroad assumptions; u mean to tell us that before
guns were invented, fighting people did not kill one another??

No, I'm saying that the ability to resort to very cheap, lethal force very easily means that fighting people have a much greater chance of killing people.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

U tell us, with great assurance that neither of them woud have grabbed a blunt or sharp object in the fight, if no gun were present? A gun is only a tool.

Given that one was sitting in her car leaving, I can say that with assurance. Likewise with the woman on the cell phone who was in a moving car, the guy passing a 70 year old man, the cyclist riding down the road, etc.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

engineer wrote:
Without a gun near to hand, that engineer would not have shot that cell phone using lady. You can correctly blame the engineer
and hold him accountable for his actions, but you also have to
recognize that if his gun had not been right at hand, he'd have
likely just driven by, maybe flipping her off. My statement is that
the overall health of the entire population is improved by less guns, not more.
Even if we were to assume for the moment, that u were correct about that: each citizen must decide whether he will choose to be helpless, defenseless in the face of possible future abuse that might kill him,
and then prepare himself according to his judgment in that matter.

He will subsequently be held accountable for his acts.

I agree with this statement. What I disagree with is your assertion that we will all be safer if everyone is armed.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Y did u ignore my thought experiments ?
No comment ?

I did comment (at length). For every imaginary funeral you envision, I imagine several healthy people walking about without bullets in their bodies. Much like the idea that it's ok to torture all prisoners just in case they know about a nuclear device getting ready to blow up, you use an extreme case to try and disprove a more mundane one. I don't play the lottery. The reason is that I know that on average I will lose money and I don't get any entertainment value out of it to make up for my loss. You could say "but what if you favorite numbers would have hit the jackpot? You'd be phenomenally wealthy!" True, but the more likely scenario is that I lose. Likewise with encouraging the population to be armed. I think it is much more likely that I lose because some hot head who has had a bad day thinks I dissed him in traffic and pumps a round into me before I even know he's there than I win because I was able to subdue a pack of wolves.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

engineer, I think you may have misread the bulk of David's posts, he has consistently objected to concern for the overall health of the entire population and focused on the rights of the individual.

I understand his personal belief that he should be armed in self defense and I'm sure he is a prudent firearm user. I disagree with his statements that arming everyone would make everyone safer and I propose that for the population as a whole, possessing firearms would result in a distorted sense of personal safety and control leading people to make bad decisions about how safe any given situation is plus a dramatic increase in personal confrontations where a firearm is involved.

Modern firearms are so lethal and effective that if you are in a situation with a gun wielder you are at extreme risk. This was not true in the "wild west" where hand guns were fairly inaccurate and required significant skill to use effectively. The old draw gun fight on main street is a myth. More typical were the duels where the duelists stood a some distance apart and fired at each other repeatedly until they ran out of bullets or someone got a lucky hit. David routinely (once a week or so) posts stories of someone defending themselves with a gun. I wanted to see if I could find the opposite, someone getting into a situation because of a gun. To my honest surprise, I found LOTS of these stories. As Thomas points out, I am fighting anecdotes with anecdotes, but I sure can find a lot of them.

1 Reply

The Flip Side of an Armed Public

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know