Another school shooting

[BigV]

xoB, wolf, MaggieL, all:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

"Nor do I wish to return to the medieval days when power resided in the hands of the physically strong. Firearms make self-defense accessible to all."

I'll make a minor consession to admit that the blind, minor children and quadraplegics don't have direct access to the self-defense benefits of firearms; they must rely on others for protection, as they do for other necessities like food. To that extent those benefiting from the ability to arm themselves fall short of "all". But not by much.

You're right. Children should not be armed. However, 72 millon plus children is hardly a minor concession, especially in light of the fact that the very story that started this thread is about a school shooting.

You also said:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

convicted felons and ex-mental patients with teaching licences need not apply

Why would you exclude those groups from the benefits of self-defense? Who else need not apply? Ibram's another example, apparently (notwithstanding his minor status).

Originally Posted by MaggieL

If you don't think you could use a firearm, then you're absolutely right not to carry. And your observation that the 3% of us who do carry extend protection to the 97% who don't just by creating that uncertainty is very much on-point.

This is known as "security through obscurity", a misnomer if there ever was one, since it is hardly secure. You yourself point out that it is the uncertainty that is the deterring factor. Not the gun.

As to your second point, that a person who wouldn't use a gun gains no self-defense benefit from one, concisely explains why your statement is false. Would a gun, unused, in this example provide any self-defense benefit at all? Of course not. It is the *person*, by virtue of their training, confidence, initiative, willingness to act, and above all, their situational awareness, that generates the benefits of self-defense. Not the firearm.

A firearm is a tool. It has a primary purpose, and some secondary purposes. Like all tools, it can be used well or poorly. There are situations where it is the right tool for the job, and other situations where it is not, and some in between. But it is folly to say that the tool does the job, when it is the person who does the job. "A poor workman blames his tools." What do you call one that credits his tools? A fool, I say.

So your statement fails on two counts; it certainly doesn't apply to anything close to "all" people, and it any self-defense benefits a person enjoys are the result of that person's actions, not the tools used in those actions.

A firearm is a tool, only, not a talisman.

[NSFW]

There is a pistol range near me that has a braille translation on the sign where the rules are posted, next to the door that leads into the range. One day, while going in, I pointed directed my girlfriend's attention to the braille and we snickered. Later we went back out to exchange guns (we were renting) and the guy behind the counter handed my a newspaper article about a customer at a range facility. His vision is bad enough that he can't read, but he can put the necessary percentage of his bullets in the right places to pass a test that allows him to carry a gun.

On the one hand, here's a guy who lives in a not-very-nice part of town, a guy who would be an easy victim, a ripe target for a hoodlum, and thus a guy who has more cause to buy a gun than I do. On the other hand, one of the tenets of shooting is that you take a good look behind your target and make sure there's nobody back there to get hit by strays and over-penetrated rounds.

Given the choice, would I take away his ability to defend himself from an attacker he can barely see, on the theory that he might fire into a crowd by mistake? I'm sure he's wise enough to at least know where people are likely to be, and not reckless enough to fire indiscriminantly. I would, somewhat uncomfortably, opt to trust his judgement rather than try to take his gun.

What would you do? The same? Leave him to be preyed upon but the hoods in his neighborhood? Ideally, he'd move, but economics don't favor that outcome. He's not well-off, so moving to a nicer neighborhood isn't a practical option; he's in a place where he can make his commute safely, to the best job he's had in years. It's just not a very nice neighborhood though. Does he deserve to carry a device that he gives him a chance to deter (or if necessary defeat) an attacker? Or should it be taken away from him?

[Clodfobble]

Before I had LASIK in 1999, I had really, really terrible vision. Used to be that if you couldn't see the "E" at the top of the eye chart then you were considered "legally blind," don't know if that's still the official definition. Anyway, I couldn't see it. I got my first pair of ridiculously thick glasses when I was three.

The point is, I couldn't read, but I could still see. I could walk around the house without my glasses on if need be, and I was very good at figuring out what it was I was looking at based on its particular blur. The difference between little black letters on a page and a full-grown person in a threatening posture should be obvious. A hoodlum who is really harassing him enough to be shot is also close enough to make aiming a non-issue, visually. He passed the target test, he gets to keep the gun.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

...Used to be that if you couldn't see the "E" at the top of the eye chart then you were considered "legally blind," don't know if that's still the official definition...

Yes, but that's with your glasses/contacts on. In general, if you can't be corrected to better than 20/200, you are considered to be "legally blind".

[Clodfobble]

Ah, thanks Spexx. I was correctable with lenses, damn thick though they were. (I was roughly -10.00 diopters in both eyes, unless I've forgotten the correct meaning of diopters, in which case I was about -10.00 in whatever units your prescription is generally in. )

[Spexxvet]

That's a pretty hefty Rx, but SteveDallas has you beat by a long shot, IIRC. Luckily lens thickness can be radically reduced now, compared to even 10 years ago.

[morethanpretty]

Guns cause as many problems as the "solve". The only reasonable use for a gun is to hunt with it. And then you still need to be extremely careful and responsible at all times. If you want to protect yourself from hoodlums carry pepperspray, stun gun or one of these. The fatality risk is greatly reduced, they're just as effective and less likely to kill an innocent bystander.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hoodlum?.... maybe, but not hoodlums. And that's only for a hoodlum that doesn't have a serious bent to cause you bodily harm. Although those are admittedly rare.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

xoB, wolf, MaggieL, all:


You're right. Children should not be armed. However, 72 millon plus children is hardly a minor concession, especially in light of the fact that the very story that started this thread is about a school shooting.

Yes, and was it caused by one of the 115,000 guns someone said kids take to school each day?
I'm not saying they should, heavens no. Just reminding you all those guns didn't cause any shootings today, I've heard about.

snip~This is known as "security through obscurity", a misnomer if there ever was one, since it is hardly secure. You yourself point out that it is the uncertainty that is the deterring factor. Not the gun.

But wouldn't exist at all without the availability of them.

As to your second point, that a person who wouldn't use a gun gains no self-defense benefit from one, concisely explains why your statement is false. Would a gun, unused, in this example provide any self-defense benefit at all? Of course not.

False, most of the time displaying the gun will do the job.
Not a good practice and I highly advise against it if you're not willing to use it, but it works most of the time.

It is the *person*, by virtue of their training, confidence, initiative, willingness to act, and above all, their situational awareness, that generates the benefits of self-defense. Not the firearm.

What? You're kidding, right? What the hell good are any of those things, except awareness, without the tool?

A firearm is a tool. It has a primary purpose, and some secondary purposes. Like all tools, it can be used well or poorly. There are situations where it is the right tool for the job, and other situations where it is not, and some in between. But it is folly to say that the tool does the job, when it is the person who does the job. "A poor workman blames his tools." What do you call one that credits his tools? A fool, I say.

So you'd take away shovels because sometimes a pick is a better choice?

So your statement fails on two counts; it certainly doesn't apply to anything close to "all" people, and it any self-defense benefits a person enjoys are the result of that person's actions, not the tools used in those actions.

No, but it's umbrella effect covers many of those people. If Bruce Waynes father had been armed there would be no Batman.

A firearm is a tool, only, not a talisman.

That's 100% true. Now why do you want to take away any of my tools?

You chose the name Big V. Methinks it was not because you are a 90lb weakling. You are also seriously into bossing kids .....er, I mean teaching Boy Scout credos to children. OK, I was jiving ya, sorry. But, I'll bet you firmly believe in and try to live by those credos, which is very commendable. You also live in an area that has crime problems, like everywhere, but you must admit is not known for it/them.

Put this all together and we have a man that looks like messing with him should not be taken lightly, leading an exemplary lifestyle, avoiding most places even close to seamy, in an area not noted for crime. I would expect your attitude based on that. I'm saying it's not a profile of someone who might feel they need a gun.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

The fatality risk is greatly reduced, they're just as effective...

Nonsense. They're not anywhere near as effective. In many cases they don't work at all.

(And the Tazer you linked to is illegal in Philadelphia. :-) )

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

This is known as "security through obscurity", a misnomer if there ever was one, since it is hardly secure. You yourself point out that it is the uncertainty that is the deterring factor. Not the gun.

That's a huge misapplication of the term. But allow me to point out if only criminals had guns, the uncertainty would be gone.

The 3% of the population that arms themselves (when permitted to) happen to extend a protective umbrella of uncertainly to those around them. But only those who actually do arm themselves have certain protection.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

Why would you exclude those groups from the benefits of self-defense?

I said that because that's what the law is. *I* didn't exclude them personally. Are you proposing changing the law?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

It is the *person*, by virtue of their training, confidence, initiative, willingness to act, and above all, their situational awareness, that generates the benefits of self-defense. Not the firearm... What do you call one that credits his tools? A fool, I say.

A craftsman understands what his tools can and cannot do. He also understands the limitations imposed on him when he is deprived of the proper tools.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Guns cause as many problems as the "solve". The only reasonable use for a gun is to hunt with it.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This viewpoint is friendly to genocide.

You will note that my viewpoint is very unfriendly to genocide. (It's not too sweet on genocide's supporters here in the Cellar, either.)

Which is the morally superior position, and why are you contenting yourself with the inferior one? There are two explanations -- both unflattering, you know.

General ownership of firearms, teacheth the JPFO, is the only known preventative of episodes of genocide, and surely resisting genocide is a "reasonable" use for a gun. While the fundamental rationality of general warfare is open to debate (I regard war as an inescapable part of the human condition, just as getting eaten by lions is part of the African antelope condition.) the fundamental rationality of resisting getting killed by hostile combatants is not. Morethanp, your approach makes refugees, not winners. What's the point of that?

You won't be blessed with an informed opinion on this until you've read Simkin, Zelman, and Rice's Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide, available from the JPFO among other sources.

How is it that you inhabit a small town in Texas and are unable to understand guns better?

[morethanpretty]

Some one cleaning a gun recently shot a person I know in the back through the wall of her hotel room. Many of those who own guns are idiots. Many people are more than likely to overreact when confronted and therefore accidently shoot someone. And just because they "attack" doesn't mean they deserve to be killed. That is why we have justice system. Guns don't always work right either. I might have not have been entirely accurate when I said there are other methods of deterring attackers that are just as effective. You're right, none of the other methods of self protection normally cause as much mass harm as guns do. Just because it is the most forceful method doesn't make it the best method. Kill or be killed? Thats a very uncivilized view. UG I understand guns very well and I've known many incidents of things going wrong with them that have caused death to an innocent bystander. Most Texans own guns for hunting and recreation. Not protection against other people.
EDIT: I have never once said I have a problem with people owning guns. I have a problem with them being used as your main source of self protection. At my house we have a hand gun, we know how to use it. But 1st we have a large dog, a locked door, two warning dogs (rat/chihuahua mixes), a baseball bat, and 911. If I am ever in an unsecured location, I am by bright lights, my mother knows where I am and when I should be home, and I have my pepperspray. I believe I need a gun to keep me safe, neither would I be willing to use it. In this incident MaggieL where is the protective umbrella you provide me?