[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-17, 18:57, said:

Never my intention, was just exagerating to point out how stupid your logic was, no need to go nuclear: gas, bombs, tanks would work the same way.

In what way is my logic "stupid"? For that matter, what is "my logic"?

[blackshoe]

hotShot, on 2010-December-17, 17:29, said:

Sure you can get an illegal weapon, but there is a chance that you came to your senses before you get one.

Assuming that the doofus has the guts to try that with a knife, the same thing could happen.
But running away very effective would have been very effective for most people in the room or if the cooperated they would have a chance to overpower the doofus.

And of course there's no chance that someone could "come to his senses" if he buys a gun legally.

Why do you assume that anyone with a gun in his hand is necessarily insane?

You ask me, trying to "overpower" a guy with a gun, from behind a desk, is insane, four to one odds or no. That would be true even if the four were young and fit, which these guys were not.

[blackshoe]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-18, 05:34, said:

So therefore you should have a very large caliber weapon sitting in your lap all the time just in case? Come on Phil, even if one of them had a gun, it would probably be in their jacket or something. And reaching into your jacket to pull out a gun is definitely wrong because you will immediately increase the probability that shots will be fired to about 99.99%. OK, fine, maybe you will hit him and he won't hit anyone. I won't speculate on the probabilites involved there. But I would much prefer any solution where no shots are fired at all.

Any rational person would prefer a solution where no shots are fired.

Your "Come on, Phil" is precisely why I talked about training. I wasn't just talking about training in how to point and shoot the gun, but in when to use it, how to carry it, when not to use it, and a hundred other things that it's apparent you haven't even considered. You assume that simply having a gun pumps up the ego, grants some kind of assumed invulnerability and "rightness", and will induce "cowboy" behavior. That may happen with someone who picks up a gun with no training, but not with someone well trained.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-18, 08:36, said:

Any rational person would prefer a solution where no shots are fired.

Your "Come on, Phil" is precisely why I talked about training. I wasn't just talking about training in how to point and shoot the gun, but in when to use it, how to carry it, when not to use it, and a hundred other things that it's apparent you haven't even considered. You assume that simply having a gun pumps up the ego, grants some kind of assumed invulnerability and "rightness", and will induce "cowboy" behavior. That may happen with someone who picks up a gun with no training, but not with someone well trained.

Wait a second.....I don't understand your argument.

The gun-lovers argue that having a gun makes one safer. This can only be if one is going to use it in response to threats of violence. Carrying a gun but being unwilling to use it when threatened sort of defeats the purpose, don't you think? What kind of deterrent is it if one has been trained to NOT pull it when there may be a risk that pulling it will anger or frighen the person who presents the threat?

And it seems that you recognize that pulling a gun in response to a threat is a stupid thing to do....which appears to be the consensus of virtually everyone who has actually studied the subject in real life as opposed to getting their understanding of gun use from hollywood.....in hollywood, good guys generally hit their targets, with handguns from 100 feet while falling through the air while being shot at by dozens of bad guys armed with automatic weapons....good guys are about 100,000 times as accurate as bad guys.....altho the good guy is often wounded, the bad guys are always killed.

Undergoing training in the use of guns does not equip anyone with the ability to alter the emotional state of an assailant...other than in a detrimental way through pulling the gun...so I don't see how your post makes any sense at all. In addition, my posts about the effect of adrenalin (and stress in general) applies to people who have undergone police training...including certifies marksman.....the only people who undergo more intensive training in firearm use are the military...and don't get me started on the implications of military training, and the psychological reshaping of personalities involved therein

So training ordinary citizens even to the standard of police officers won't solve anything.

[gwnn]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-18, 08:15, said:

In what way is my logic "stupid"? For that matter, what is "my logic"?

Fluffy replied to this post (in fact he quoted it in his reply):

blackshoe said:

Guns exist. So long as they exist, some people will have them (legally or not). So long as some people have them, it is folly to deny others that right.

I admit that I don't understand, just because some things exist and some people have them, why is it folly to deny others the right of possessing them? I am not going to note any counterexamples, but I just don't understand the train of thought.

[mike777]

I agree that gun owners argue that having a gun or even the legal right to own a gun makes one safer.

I agree that many on the other side argue that banning the ownership or possession of guns makes one safer.

They use the word safer in a broad sense of the word; safer from evil guys, evil governments, hunger, etc.

If gun owners are not willing to use or even threaten to use it for food or protection, that argument goes away.

If, if pulling a gun against any kind of threat at all is a stupid thing to do, gun owners on the face of it lose the argument.

[y66]

cherdano, on 2010-December-17, 16:52, said:

It's "typically German" to respond to such a shooting by asking for video games to be censored.
Well, of course strictly speaking it's only typical of some Germans. But there are many more such Germans (at least in the public debate) than there are Brits or Americans. So I think it's accurate to describe that as a "typically German".

If you take "xyz is typically American" to mean trait xyz is more characteristic of people living in America than other countries, I get your point. If you say it means trait xyz is characteristic of more Americans than not, which is how I took it, then I think you are mistaken in this case.

Fortunately, for the less-adverbially-inclined, phrases like "typically <insert nationality>" appear to be on the wane.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2010-December-18, 08:59, said:

Wait a second.....I don't understand your argument.

The gun-lovers argue that having a gun makes one safer. This can only be if one is going to use it in response to threats of violence. Carrying a gun but being unwilling to use it when threatened sort of defeats the purpose, don't you think? What kind of deterrent is it if one has been trained to NOT pull it when there may be a risk that pulling it will anger or frighen the person who presents the threat?

And it seems that you recognize that pulling a gun in response to a threat is a stupid thing to do....which appears to be the consensus of virtually everyone who has actually studied the subject in real life as opposed to getting their understanding of gun use from hollywood.....in hollywood, good guys generally hit their targets, with handguns from 100 feet while falling through the air while being shot at by dozens of bad guys armed with automatic weapons....good guys are about 100,000 times as accurate as bad guys.....altho the good guy is often wounded, the bad guys are always killed.

Undergoing training in the use of guns does not equip anyone with the ability to alter the emotional state of an assailant...other than in a detrimental way through pulling the gun...so I don't see how your post makes any sense at all. In addition, my posts about the effect of adrenalin (and stress in general) applies to people who have undergone police training...including certifies marksman.....the only people who undergo more intensive training in firearm use are the military...and don't get me started on the implications of military training, and the psychological reshaping of personalities involved therein

So training ordinary citizens even to the standard of police officers won't solve anything.

First off, can we move away from "gun-lovers" and "gun-nuts", please?

I did not say one should carry a gun but be unwilling to use it. I said if one is going to carry a gun, one should be capable of rational decision as to when to use it.

Pulling a gun in response to a threat may be a stupid thing to do. It may not. It depends on the threat.

Hollywood is bullshit, and we both know it, so let's leave that out of the discussion, okay?

There is more to gun training, IMO, than "the bullet comes out here, so make sure this end is pointed at the target."

But here's a simple question: Do you have the right to defend yourself against aggression? If so, why should you not have the tools required to do so — at least to match the level of aggression against which you're defending?

BTW, the police won't defend you, unless they happen to be around and see what's happening.

[blackshoe]

gwnn, on 2010-December-18, 10:39, said:

Fluffy replied to this post (in fact he quoted it in his reply):
I admit that I don't understand, just because some things exist and some people have them, why is it folly to deny others the right of possessing them? I am not going to note any counterexamples, but I just don't understand the train of thought.

Perhaps I should have argued this way: Every individual has the right to self defense (not to mention defense of others, such as family). In order to defend oneself or one's family, one will need the same tools as the aggressor(s). Therefore, everyone has a right to bear arms. It is not only folly, it is immoral to deny that right.

[Fluffy]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-18, 08:15, said:

In what way is my logic "stupid"? For that matter, what is "my logic"?

Guns exist implying someone will have them implying nobody should be denied the right to have them.

I don't wanna see people planting minefields on their garden to protect their families from bomb terrorists or having a tank in the garage in case the army turns over and rebels.

About self defence, there are many non lethal weapons that are able to defend yourself.

[mike777]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-19, 03:16, said:

Guns exist implying someone will have them implying nobody should be denied the right to have them.

I don't wanna see people planting minefields on their garden to protect their families from bomb terrorists or having a tank in the garage in case the army turns over and rebels.

About self defence, there are many non lethal weapons that are able to defend yourself.

lets assume yes to answer fluffy questions....not no....

lets assume we prefer to kill and not say yes to fluffy questions.

[kenberg]

I will approach this dispute about guns obliquely, starting with driving.

I am 71 and headlights on a rainy night bother me more than they once did. I recall the relief I felt when my father gave up driving. At some point I suppose I must, but not, I hope, for quite a while.

How is the decision to be made?
1. Statistics based on the abilities of drivers as they get older? No way. I am me, not a statistical average.
2. An argument that I should give it up for my own good? Thank you kindly, but I will make my own choices about my own good.
3. Some test of my abilities, with the power to take away my license if the results show that I am a menace on the roads? This I can accept. Reluctantly of course, but I can see why it must someday be done.

Back to guns:
Telling people about statistics involving guns in the home gets you nowhere. Arguing that they are stupid for preferring to have a gun will get you nowhere. Addressing it as an issue of public safety, now there may well be room for negotiation. I offer Blackshoe as exhibit A. He will support some sort of training involving gun use. Implicit in this is the idea that someone who is too mentally incapacitated to successfully complete the training would not be allowed a gun. There is room here for discussion.

The guy across the street from me used his vacation time to take his wife and go to an NRA convention. Not my cup of tea, to put it mildly. But he will not be coming over to mow me down. He won't. Well, sure, anything is possible. I might be bitten by a rattlesnake the next time I hike in the Shenandoah, but the possibility is not one of my bigger fears.

There are people of the cold dead hands persuasion. Some for ideological reasons, and quite a few, I think, because they are involved in the gun industry. Anyway, no point discussing guns with them, they will not give an inch. But my father hunted, other guys I knew hunted, I hunted until, as I mentioned, I made the decision that for me it was a bad idea. All of these people would be open to reasonable discussion.

[mikeh]

The main rea of difference between the blackshoes and me is that the blackshoes seem to assume that people are always rational actors...and assumption that underlies a lot of conservative thinking, especially about crime.

There is abundant evidence and mush theoretical discussion to the effect that people are NOT rational. Indeed, many would argue that the prevalence of religious belief...faith over evidence...shows just how deeply rooted irrationality is in the human psyche. Oh..if you;re Christain, pretend I am speaking only of muslims, and vice versa.

Anyway, if I knew that everyone was rational, I'd say go ahead and let people have guns. It's the fact that everyone...and I mean everyone...may act irrationally in the 'wrong' circumstances that makes me thing that widespread gun ownership is a terrible thing.

We have the bklackshoes saying: a rational, trained gunowner won't use it inappropriately. We have the overwhelming consensus of psychological evidence asserting that everyone acts irrationally on occasion and frequently when under stress and I know whose arguments I prefer.

[Winstonm]

In order to defend oneself or one's family country, one will need the same tools overwhelming superiority as over the aggressor(s).

FIFY

[mike777]

mikeh, on 2010-December-19, 09:31, said:

The main rea of difference between the blackshoes and me is that the blackshoes seem to assume that people are always rational actors...and assumption that underlies a lot of conservative thinking, especially about crime.

There is abundant evidence and mush theoretical discussion to the effect that people are NOT rational. Indeed, many would argue that the prevalence of religious belief...faith over evidence...shows just how deeply rooted irrationality is in the human psyche. Oh..if you;re Christain, pretend I am speaking only of muslims, and vice versa.

Anyway, if I knew that everyone was rational, I'd say go ahead and let people have guns. It's the fact that everyone...and I mean everyone...may act irrationally in the 'wrong' circumstances that makes me thing that widespread gun ownership is a terrible thing.

We have the bklackshoes saying: a rational, trained gunowner won't use it inappropriately. We have the overwhelming consensus of psychological evidence asserting that everyone acts irrationally on occasion and frequently when under stress and I know whose arguments I prefer.

no in fact you miss the main point

The right to own a gun makes one safer or makes one less safer. The right to own a gun gives you more freedom or the right to not not let you own a gun gives you more freedom.

If you do not have the right to own a gun and it makes you safer and gives you greater freedom that is the main point.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2010-December-19, 08:20, said:

I will approach this dispute about guns obliquely, starting with driving.

I am 71 and headlights on a rainy night bother me more than they once did. I recall the relief I felt when my father gave up driving. At some point I suppose I must, but not, I hope, for quite a while.

How is the decision to be made?
1. Statistics based on the abilities of drivers as they get older? No way. I am me, not a statistical average.
2. An argument that I should give it up for my own good? Thank you kindly, but I will make my own choices about my own good.
3. Some test of my abilities, with the power to take away my license if the results show that I am a menace on the roads? This I can accept. Reluctantly of course, but I can see why it must someday be done.

Back to guns:
Telling people about statistics involving guns in the home gets you nowhere. Arguing that they are stupid for preferring to have a gun will get you nowhere. Addressing it as an issue of public safety, now there may well be room for negotiation. I offer Blackshoe as exhibit A. He will support some sort of training involving gun use. Implicit in this is the idea that someone who is too mentally incapacitated to successfully complete the training would not be allowed a gun. There is room here for discussion.

The guy across the street from me used his vacation time to take his wife and go to an NRA convention. Not my cup of tea, to put it mildly. But he will not be coming over to mow me down. He won't. Well, sure, anything is possible. I might be bitten by a rattlesnake the next time I hike in the Shenandoah, but the possibility is not one of my bigger fears.

There are people of the cold dead hands persuasion. Some for ideological reasons, and quite a few, I think, because they are involved in the gun industry. Anyway, no point discussing guns with them, they will not give an inch. But my father hunted, other guys I knew hunted, I hunted until, as I mentioned, I made the decision that for me it was a bad idea. All of these people would be open to reasonable discussion.

re: driving -- option 3 sounds good to me and yes I would support mandatory, rigorous rode safety instruction as a condition for getting a drivers license and for renewing every 10 years. I'll bet if you told your kids you were doing this every few years, they would appreciate it. I wish my dad would do this. I'll ask him what he thinks about this idea.

re: guns -- ditto. You'd think serious gun owners would be out there pushing for this. Over to you blackshoe.

[mike777]

"sounds good to me and yes I would support mandatory, rigorous rode safety instruction"




Again if taking away rights makes one safer and more free......I am for it.

If strict safety code makes one more safe and free I am for it.

-------------------


OTOH again we see people are willing to trade freedom for safety.

[Fluffy]

I am no expert on crime, but I think most people murdered by guns, are murdered by guns used by men. Is his because less women have guns?, or because less women go irrational?, maybe only allowing women to have guns would work better.

[y66]

This is off point, sorry. Just wanted to thank the "typically American" comment posters. As a result of trying to decipher that comment, I found out my library subscribes to OED online and I can access it for free. Talk about "make my day".

[ggwhiz]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-19, 11:35, said:

because less women go irrational?, maybe only allowing women to have guns would work better.

1. She attacked an armed man with a purse.

2. As an Ex Husband, I wouldn't like that.