Guns don't kill people ....

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Can lose caution? 1% of situations where people losing caution is a hell of a lot different than 99% of situations. Your statement has no merit since you are using anecdotes and what if scenarios. In the vast majority of situations, the scene will not be complete chaos.

And where do you get your 1% and 99% ?
Frankly, I believe you will be hard pressed to document a statistically valid
sample of instances where CCL-guns were actually used to prevent or reduce
the incidence of the so-called intrusions/attacks/etc, let alone test the level of "caution" or loss there of.
Certainly the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' annual surveys cannot document such improved outcomes.

Seriously, to both sides, it all depends on gun culture. When some people (lets call them Type A) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon they are holding and will become more cautious. They will not do anything stupid and will avoid confrontations unless absolutely necessary. Guns in the hands of these people, in general (I repeat....in general), will make society safer.

How much safer will these Type A people be with their guns than without them ?
I believe you are defining this group from within a larger group of people
- who generally behave safely and avoid confrontations, with or without a gun.


When other people (lets call them Type B) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon and power trip. They will be very confrontational and will enforce their status with guns. Gun in the hands of these people, in general, will make society more dangerous.

And, so the numerical balance of outcome between two groups is what, zero ?
Again, such a number is probably not available, and it's an assumption
that Group A benefits will far outweigh group B.

Both sides of the gun debate argument talk about different types of people.

Also, complete gun control in the US is a fantasy due to our gun culture. Both Type A and Type B people prefer guns and banning will just push guns further underground, as it did with drugs and alcohol.

In a previous post, you said such would lead to "revolution" Now that is scary, and really cuts off discussion !
But isn't the biggest part of this problem what you refer to next... regulation.
From my perspective, it's the absolute intolerance towards any kind of regulation by NRA etc. that prevents useful discussion


To make the US safer with guns, it has to strictly regulated. In order to possess a firearm, classes and licenses (like driving) need to be obtained. If you are caught with a firearm without a license, the penalty should be harsh since there should be NO excuse for carrying without a license.

This is not a perfect solution but both sides need to acknowledge that their views are far from ideal as well.
Agreed !

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

And where do you get your 1% and 99% ?

Frankly, I believe you will be hard pressed to document a statistically valid sample of instances where CCL-guns were actually used to prevent or reduce the incidence of the so-called intrusions/attacks/etc, let alone test the level of "caution" or loss there of. Certainly the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' annual surveys cannot document such improved outcomes.

That is my point. I picked your quote because you were the last person to post but both sides of the gun control debate have a strong tendency to solely cite anecdotes or be completely speculative. As you mentioned, it is impossible to statistically measure the complete impact of guns into positive and negative categories that can be compared. All we have is gun crime statistics, anecdotes, and speculation, all of which are heavily biased and do not give a good picture of the problem. That is why I am trying to frame this debate in a different manner.

How much safer will these Type A people be with their guns than without them ?
I believe you are defining this group from within a larger group of people - who generally behave safely and avoid confrontations, with or without a gun.

No, the context is correct. I am saying that because I personally sometimes fall under that category. I think fighting is stupid but I like to mess with people and see how far I can take it. It is usually in good fun but it is possible to hit a nerve and get a defensive response out of someone, especially when alcohol is involved. However, if I was a carrying a gun with me, I would never do anything that could potentially get a defensive response out of someone because I know it could escalate quickly and put me in a very bad situation.

And, so the numerical balance of outcome between two groups is what, zero ?
Again, such a number is probably not available, and it's an assumption that Group A benefits will far outweigh group B.

I made no assertion because this is the discussion that I would like to see. There is no numerical equation but framing it in this way at least shows forces everyone to acknowledge both sides.

If I had a guess, I would say certain regions of the US have many more Type A people than Type B and other regions of the US have many more Type B people than Type A. Once again, it depends on the gun culture of the particular location. That is why I am against any federal gun control ban (besides overly powerful weapons). What may work for New York City will probably not work for Wyoming and vice versa. Gun control laws should be local.

In a previous post, you said such would lead to "revolution" Now that is scary, and really cuts off discussion !

It was a hyperbole. I made the point that it is currently not politically possible for the government to completely ban guns in the US.

From my perspective, it's the absolute intolerance towards any kind of regulation by NRA etc. that prevents useful discussion

I agree. They have a very negative role in this.

[BigV]

well, sexobon, you're right. I don't have my own private facts, and I don't know to four decimal places the state of mind of other people. your analogy about power tools is a good one. I'm careful when I use them, but I'm careful anyhow. we were both composing our posts at the same time it appears.

My point is that care is due because stakes are higher; the situation has greater potential for serious consequences in very short timeframes when guns are present. My nephew just bought a car, his first. I'm kinda terrified for him because his personal local danger quotient just leapt higher. I told him, no offense, but distraction, impairment and inexperience are the greatest factors in teenage car accidents. They don't have to be fatal to be horrific. So I begged him, until he gains more experience, slow the fuck down. Margin for error is his best, his only substitute for experience until he gains it. (No drinking period or **I* will personally kick his ass; put the goddamn iphone in the trunk when you're driving). I digress.

Since things can go from "grrrrr" to "holyshit what just happened" in an ohnosecond, greater caution is needed to avoid tragedy. But not everyone has adequate __________ (I don't know the quality here. brains? restraint? whatever) to exercise such a right responsibly. We have a lot of rights, and I'd like to avoid devolving into a constitutional pissing match for the moment, but there are few rights when exercised irresponsibly have such serious consequences *for other people*, namely, those being shot, than the right to bear arms.

It's an important right, and those who exercise it bear a proportionally serious responsibility. How can those of us who want to avoid being shot improve that likelihood? I don't think I'm at risk from you, or from dmg. But there are plenty of people who do represent a greater risk to *my* right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. We have rules about who can get access to controlled substances, you need a note from your doctor to get your hands on some things that risk only personal, individual danger, not to other people. We all know how george zimmerman answers that question, I reject his method. What do you say can be done, or should be done about tragedies like what happened in CO and in WI?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by BigV

... My nephew just bought a car, his first. I'm kinda terrified for him because his personal local danger quotient just leapt higher. I told him, no offense, but distraction, impairment and inexperience are the greatest factors in teenage car accidents. They don't have to be fatal to be horrific. So I begged him, until he gains more experience, slow the fuck down. Margin for error is his best, his only substitute for experience until he gains it. (No drinking period or **I* will personally kick his ass; put the goddamn iphone in the trunk when you're driving). I digress. ...

... How can those of us who want to avoid being shot improve that likelihood? ...

Drivers, both novice and experienced, benefit from defensive driving courses that teach them how to recognize potential threats and methods to avoid those becoming actual threats. The practice is accepted to the point where some auto insurance companies even give a discount to drivers who complete an accredited course and money talks. There are naysayers who contend that they should neither have to go to all that trouble to protect themselves from bad drivers nor have to carry uninsured motorist insurance coverage and perhaps that's true; however, the consequences of acting on that premise are prohibitive and those who don't drive defensively or carry the added insurance are generally construed to be deficient in judgment.

Military, police, and even some private security firms train their people to recognize others who's behaviors indicate they may be carrying concealed weapons and they teach methods for avoiding those who present as potential threats to keep them from becoming actual threats. The civilian population generally hasn't caught up with this despite the practice being accepted by those who face such risks professionally.

There are several reasons for maintaining the status quo: As with drivers, a lot of people simply don't think that the burden should be on them to learn avoidance measures. Police don't see their tax dollar allocations go up for teaching people how not to be victims (their allocations go up when there are more victims). There probably isn't enough demand to support commercial classes. There's no financial incentive, like discounts on life and medical insurance, for being trained in this type of threat recognition since the frequency of insurance providers saving on payouts is much lower than for something like drivers' claims.

Unfortunately, people need to realize that we're not going to eliminate guns from society anymore than we're going to eliminate cars. The onus is on themselves to recognize and avoid potential threats from shooters just as practical people have learned to recognize and avoid potential threats from drivers. Either that; or, fall by the wayside.

Originally Posted by BigV

... I'd like to avoid devolving into a constitutional pissing match for the moment, ...

Done.

[Sundae]

If I'd had access to a gun during my lowest moments I think I would have committed suicide.
Not suggesting it as a reason for gun control, just saying what I think.

When I went to counselling the PSO asked how I invisaged suicide. Shooting myself under my right jaw. I would even probe the spot while imagining it. I must have seen it somewhere when a person was being held hostage - I have no idea if it is an effective spot, but it was very real to me.

It was very reassuring to the PSO; despite counting as suicidal thoughts it was still a suicidal fantasy, given that I had no way of acquiring a gun. At that stage I couldn't even use a phone (I had special dispensation to make walk-in appointments, turning up after a 1.5m walk).

Do you have any restrictions on over the counter drugs commonly used in suicides?
We do.

You can go to every pharmacy in town and buy the maximum allowable of course, but it is hoped that by the time you have queued up behind the methadone patients and the old giffers querying why their their tablets are a different colour, and the women with screaming babies, you will realise that some people have it worse than you.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Do you have any restrictions on over the counter drugs commonly used in suicides?
We do.

Drugs are very heavily regulated in the States. I would guess that a lot of over the counter stuff in GB is regulated here. We are a strange place with our talk of liberty. Even dying patients have to squirrel away pills to control their end of life.

[Sundae]

I'm thinking Paracetemol, which from reading American books equates with Tylenol?

[Griff]

So they'd die of internal bleeding and liver failure? I'd rather they had access to an opiate or a gun.

We don't regulate tylenol or some cold medicines but that sounds like a terrible road.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Griff

So they'd die of internal bleeding and liver failure? I'd rather they had access to an opiate or a gun.

We don't regulate tylenol or some cold medicines but that sounds like a terrible road.

Oh gosh yes, I agree re a horrible, horrible end.
Which is why I didn't choose it. I know about the nastiness of dying of a paracetemol overdose because Mum used to work for the Ambulance Service. She made us aware of all sorts if unusual things (across to the hospital, up to the morgue for example).

Less physically messy though. So if no-one really does love you, you die quietly rather than your landlord retching on his knees faced with a scrubbing brush full of brains.

Emotionally, suicide's a messy business generally.

[piercehawkeye45]

How about rephrasing the question in a less biased way.


Every action an individual takes, no matter how large or small, affects the environment around that individual. At what point should society decide that restricting an individual's action benefits society more than not restricting the action?

[BigV]

Some guns were used in this:

Constable, civilian, gunman confirmed dead after shooting near Texas A&M campus

COLLEGE STATION, Texas—Three people, including a Brazos County constable, died Monday when a gunman opened fire near the Texas A&M campus in College Station, according to investigators.

The gunman and another civilian were also killed, police said.

A female civilian, 55, was also shot and was rushed to the hospital, where she underwent emergency surgery. Her condition was not known.

The suspect was shot by responding officers and later pronounced dead. The name of the 35-year-old gunman has not been released.

[BigV]

No gun here, people still died.


Woman stabs boyfriend in neck during argument

HOUSTON—A man died after his girlfriend stabbed him in the neck during an argument, according to police.

Same here:

Bride stabs, kills fiancé hours before wedding in Philadelphia

PHILADELPHIA —
A bride-to-be was sent to jail on her wedding day after police said she stabbed her fiancé twice and killed him

It's true, people kill people, and they're creative in their choice of weapons.

[Rhianne]

It shouldn't. But when Joe, Jim, Bob, Harry, Fred, Susie, Steve, Kenny and Eric do it too I think it would be responsible to think about it at least.

[ZenGum]

Okay, fellas, the whole homo-erotic phallic-firearm things is getting out of hand.



Next three posters have to play soggy biscuit.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Okay, fellas, the whole homo-erotic phallic-firearm things is getting out of hand.



Next three posters have to play soggy biscuit.

Ok, first I had to look up 'boganesque' because of Ducks and now I have to ask what is 'soggy biscuit' -? Is it an Oz thing or a dirty guy thing?