there is a difference between saying "always" and "far more likely to" ... the statistics you posted actually support my claim.
yes and no. sometimes you can make decisions that affect the outcome
Firearms and Freedom
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
There's no "far more likely to" about it.
"In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians."
That doesn't support anything you said.
You can probably prolong your life by deciding to never leave your house too. But few people are that worried about dying to do that.
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
Except we don't hold those people accountable.
Would you pretend a prosecutor's sentiments toward gun ownership never play any role?
Okay, we're going to go back here and reconsider a point you seem to have missed:
What I'm after is that every "responsible gun owner" is a "responsible gun owner" until one day they suddenly aren't.
And virtually every person I've known who has actually spoken that phrase to my face has a wonderful story about their own irresponsibility. There's the hunting story, that somehow ends up with a teenager beating a deer to death with a .44 revolver. Or the one about going shooting drunk in an orchard; no, really, you look at someone like that and say, "Responsible?" and they answer, "It's not like we shot someone."
(#37↑)
And virtually every person I've known who has actually spoken that phrase to my face has a wonderful story about their own irresponsibility. There's the hunting story, that somehow ends up with a teenager beating a deer to death with a .44 revolver. Or the one about going shooting drunk in an orchard; no, really, you look at someone like that and say, "Responsible?" and they answer, "It's not like we shot someone."
(#37↑)
Yeah, it seems you skipped over that one↑.
Should I wonder why? Or was it "just an accident"?
It might be important, because otherwise―
how can a "responsible gun owner" be held responsible for an action a criminal takes against him?
―I should be, I don't know, what is it, ROTFLMFAO? I should be doing that over the implication that a three year-old is a criminal.
So here are a couple more: How about the reloader accidents leaving holes in the house? Or putting a kitten in a vise to immobilize it while you fetch your nine and put it down because it pissed in the garage and some of it got on your toolbox? Better yet, a freaking accountant somehow escapes from a nearby minimum-security federal prison, so a bunch of men form up a posse, meet at the tavern, and six hours later the waitress is calling the wives to come pick them up. My friend's mother got the call and sent us, instead, and a bunch of drunk guys stumbling around in the street waving loaded firearms and shouting about shooting this and that isn't exactly an inspiring scene.
And here's the thing: Every one of them is angry at the guv'mint for hatin' on "responsible gun owners" like themselves.
And to be honest, Stumpy, this is where you're starting to be annoying.
What you're doing in this discussion is akin to Christian zealotry I recall from youth. The way it worked was that someone would try to witness to you, and you might have your reasons for not wanting to join up. And no matter what you tell them about your experience in Christian communities, all they do is disqualify other Christians: "That's not Christian!"
And this is a common temptation. In fact, they're probably right; that isn't Christian. Nothing about that, though, says what they're preaching to you or me actually is Christian. The whole point of denouncing the others as not Christian is to avoid having to explain something they're not smart enough to figure out.
And while disqualifying other Christians has long seemed something near to sport―Baptists disqualify Catholics, Seventh-Day Adventists have a pet theory about how the Pope is the Anti-Christ, pretty much everyone disqualifies the Latter-Day Saints―this manner of disqualification had the additional sting of telling someone their life experience is irrelevant.
And that's what you are doing.
While trying desperately to change the subject.
Yeah, you know, I would agree that these people I'm describing aren't actually "responsible gun owners", but that's the thing: They think they are. And that is what renders the phrase meaningless.
Criminals? Okay, so we had this ridiculous case up here in which the cops had a repeat-offending intimate abuser in custody who also happened to be in the country illegally. But he was British, not Mexican, so everyone decided it wasn't their business to worry about that. They released him from custody. He went to a friend's house, somehow obtained a .357, made his way to the University of Washington, and gunned down his pregnant ex-girlfriend.
Probably ten years ago, statistics out of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, part of the Department of Justice, indicated that of federal prisoners who used guns in their crimes, around thirty-eight percent got the weapons from friends and family, which was just about the same number as illegal street acquisitions.
There is a question of what is going on, here.
Was the gun "stolen"? Okay, now what does that mean? Did someone walk in and pick up an easily accessible gun? To what degree is leaving a loaded firearm unattended for just anyone to pick up "responsible"? We generally don't hold these people accountable.
I have a friend who still hunts; he got rid of his handgun when he realized he was more dangerous without it. Martial arts can do that to a person, after all. But if you want his rifle, you have to break into the house and find the components in separate, locked storage units located variously around the house. That is to say, the firing mechanism is removed and kept in a lockbox in a different room on a different floor of the house, away from the gun rack in the basement with the disabled rifles locked in a pretty tough cabinet.
So let's try talking about "responsible gun owners". How about a cop? You know, leaving his personal gun accessible to the three year old who didn't live through the morning. Honestly, would that man really have ever said, "You can't punish the 'responsible gun owners', but, you know, I'm not worried about that part since I'm an 'irresponsible gun owner'"?
This is the problem.
How about a six year-old?
“We have a six-year-old brother. The biggest thing we need to get across is his well-being, that he should not have been in a situation where he could’ve got his hands on it,” said James Lonaker Jr., the victim’s son.
(WISH↱)
(WISH↱)
I don't know, do you think the late James Lonaker would have called himself an "irresponsible gun owner"? I mean, you know, before he left his gun sitting there for his kid to pick up and kill him with?
Okay, here's one: Is the moral of the story that the first time a "responsible gun owner" is irresponsible, someone gets shot?
You know, as in it's the first time he ever left the gun unattended?
How about the Sheriff's Deputy in Guthrie, Oklahoma? Should we believe that was the first time in his life as a "responsible gun owner" that he failed to secure his firearm against unauthorized access? How about the deputy in Michigan whose four year-old got hold of Daddy's gun?
(The point, by the way, just to spare the potential confusion, is that this would be remarkable human behavior worthy of study; that is to say, it's an unrealistic proposition. They have committed these irresponsibilities before.)
And, you know, racism ought to have no place in this discussion, but it's worth noting that a point I've made before―if it's a black kid who gets hold of his uncle's gun, we prosecute the uncle, but a white kid getting hold of his uncle's gun is "just an accident"―goes away if we actually prosecute these godawful examples of irresponsibility.
The standard of "responsible gun ownership" seems to have less to do with general conduct and more to do with what happens when that conduct results in tragedy.
Start prosecuting these people, and maybe other "responsible gun owners" will be a little more careful. And maybe that seems like a punishment to you, but if it means, oh, say, that kid over there lives to see his fifth birthday, what then?
Or is it just more responsible to send flowers with our condolences? Because if the only indicator of irresponsible gun ownership is a corpse, the phrase has no meaning.
Oh, hey, a couple unresolved bits from prior firearms discussions; perhaps you might be able to fill in the blanks others either couldn't or wouldn't:
But what are we going to do about this? What is a 'responsible gun owner', and who gets to write the definition? Heaven knows, we are a nation filled with 'responsible gun owners' who will resent the idea of being told how to conduct themselves and their firearms safely."
We've seen a version of that one in this thread; I just hoped to prod you again in hopes that you would actually address the issue.
And it's true that some of those folks probably would have died, anyway, even if there were no guns available to the shooters. But, at the same time, it's hard to imagine a three year-old in Oklahoma accidentally bludgeoning himself to death with a baseball bat.
Would you care to dispute that point?
And will you ever actually attempt to discuss the thread topic?
____________________
Notes:
Staff Reports. "Police: 6-year-old fatally shoots father". WISH. 22 February 2016. WISHTV.com. 27 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1oOd3Ws
i stated "a person who is untrained is by far more likely to seize up than "grab and tackle the shooter" "
if it was "likely" that a disarmed person would "grab and tackle the shooter" then the stats would be far higher. would you stake your own personal life on a statistic saying that you only had a 13% chance of life?
you say
but the number above suggests that it is far more "likely" that people will not get involved... otherwise the statistic would be far higher.
One thing that i also don't see anyone ever mentioning is the statistics of how many crimes were stopped by CC permit holders or armed citizens... so taking only a set of crime statistics for your prognostication is incredibly skewed, don't you think?
if the only thing you ever see is the negative while intentionally ignoring any positive, you cannot actually get a plausible, let alone accurate result. you must take the whole or you will be doomed to a false statistic... it would be like weather reporting if the only weather in the statistics used ot determine the future result was extreme bad weather...
that is part of my point... you make decisions all the time about the outcome of life. You chose to not worry about public firearms. that is a laudable tactic and i choose to stand by your right to make that decision... however, i would never tell anyone they didn't have the right to self defense because i thought the only reason anyone would choose to own a gun and CC or carry it was because they were afraid or wanted power over another.... mostly because that is a generalisation and suggest a paranoid transference.
considering the best known study on that was fraudulent and most reputable statisticians now believe it was never conducted do you really want to hoist your flag to that pole?
the reason they are never mentioned is because for the most part they are extremely overblown and have zero basis in reality. this is where you quote More Guns Less Crime right?
1- that is assumption. we don't hold some of those people accountable.
2-that is not something you can hold me accountable for either as i am one of the outspoken critics of those who fail to prosecute. Now, some prosecutors decide not to prosecute because there is no statute of limitations on homicide.. therefore it is entirely feasible that the offender can be prosecuted at a later date (undermining the sympathetic defense).
i pretend nothing. you should actually be arguing about the statistics of race and social status WRT those who are not prosecuted... it is far more likely that a popular, well off/rich, successful white (although white is not a prerequisite) person who demonstrates public emotion will not be prosecuted than a minority or "less desirable" stoic... and THAT is absolutely wrong. but you don't seem to actually care about that part, which is weird, don't you think?
no, i didn't skip it. it is just redundant and it seems you are ignoring a huge point i made.
1- you are assuming that all gun owners who make mistakes are not prosecuted: this is a false claim. it depends on the circumstances.
2- you are assuming that i consider it acceptable that someone would commit an act of negligent homicide and not get prosecuted. i don't. and i would never advocate the dismissal of charges against any "responsible gun owner" who suddenly or through negligence "wasn't responsible"
3- you are assuming that all responsible gun owners will eventually become irresponsible. Consider the volume of gun owners that you are not seeing in the news who are not being irresponsible vs the listed criminal acts (or "accidents") you've posted... what is the accident rate? less than 1%? 3%? do you have a number?
now, considering the DOJ crime stats also include accidents (that is a big hint and justifies what i said about not prosecuting the law)...
but beyond that - we collect crime stat's with accidents thrown in there, but nowhere is there a method or means for tracking crimes or incidents stopped by firearms wielding citizens acting responsibly within the law. so any statistics you use to justify removal of guns from the responsible public is skewed.
should i just copy/past what i wrote above?
the if a 3y/o has a firearm then it is the fault of the IRRESPONSIBLE adult. that is a "duh!" thing...
okay then! a couple more! why don't i just do this...
it is just redundant and it seems you are ignoring a huge point i made.
1- you are assuming that all gun owners who make mistakes are not prosecuted: this is a false claim. it depends on the circumstances.
2- you are assuming that i consider it acceptable that someone would commit an act of negligent homicide and not get prosecuted. i don't. and i would never advocate the dismissal of charges against any "responsible gun owner" who suddenly or through negligence "wasn't responsible"
3- you are assuming that all responsible gun owners will eventually become irresponsible. Consider the volume of gun owners that you are not seeing in the news who are not being irresponsible vs the listed criminal acts (or "accidents") you've posted... what is the accident rate? less than 1%? 3%? do you have a number?
now, considering the DOJ crime stats also include accidents (that is a big hint and justifies what i said about not prosecuting the law)...
but beyond that - we collect crime stat's with accidents thrown in there, but nowhere is there a method or means for tracking crimes or incidents stopped by firearms wielding citizens acting responsibly within the law. so any statistics you use to justify removal of guns from the responsible public is skewed.
does that help?
because i can't keep reiterating it when you completely ignore the fact that you are making a whole slew of not only false claims but also leaps of logic akin to a Monty Python sketch -
do NOT keep ASSuming that i'm an advocate for irresponsible gun owners. i do not. i will not. nor do i advocate for not prosecuting an irresponsible idiot who, throuhg negligence, got anyone killed with ANY weapon, car, house, stove, microwave, explosive device, tank, drinking glass, sock, underwear (this could take a while to list... are there any other non-prosecuted irresponsible crimes you are saying i advocate not prosecuting so i can narrow down the list to just what you want to make a false claim about?)
it is not the same thing.
you are saying that all gun owners are responsible till they aren't... to a degree, that is true. but you are also intimating that all responsible gun owners will suddenly become irresponsible. it doesn't work that way. And, more importantly, you are focusing your argument and basing your judgement and justifying your argument by the actions of a few over the millions who are responsible. worse still, you are claiming that because some idiot prosecutor chose not to prosecute, this is the fault of all gun owners.
lets use the car as an analogy again. when you have a car, you are responsible by law to not only maintain the vehicle, but any and all accidents that can be traced back to a negligent maintenance isn't the fault of the mechanic, but the owner. by law, it is your fault if your brakes fail because you didn't change your brake pads out... or you didn't top off your fluid levels. regardless of the last time you visited your mechanic.
now - because the few don't properly care for their car and take responsibility, will you also advocate for the removal of all cars?
no... because you will find a way to justify your argument because [insert claim here] etc... this analogy is exactly the same thing as what you are doing above. you are against firearms because:
1- there are stupid people who don't obey the law
2- they're not prosecuted (for whatever reason)
and the problem IS one that has been figured out: it's called VIOLENCE
that is the problem... not the tool used (gun)... not the CC permit... not the responsible gun owner...
and in your cases above, specifically, it is about VIOLENCE and STUPIDITY
it doesn't render the phrase meaningless. and that is where YOU keep changing the argument and going off on a logical Python redirection.
up until the point of stupidity, they were responsible. but at the moment of criminal or negligent action, it no longer is a matter of "responsibility", it is back to the point i reiterated about "actually enforcing the existing laws"... which is the bulk of the posts you've used in your anti-gun, anti-me posts above.
lets look at that:
so... they didn't enforce existing law, the criminal illegally obtained a firearm and commuted a criminal act. if you say "somehow obtained" that indicates fraud, negligence and a criminal act.
so... they didn't enforce existing law, the criminal illegally obtained a firearm and commuted a criminal act.
family members who supply a firearm to a felon are committing a criminal act.
like a car: as an owner you are responsible for your firearm.
also note: you keep making assumptions (like "Did someone walk in and pick up an easily accessible gun?"... this is a key piece of evidence here, and relevant to the argument of responsibility. without this key piece of how the weapon was acquired, how can you actually judge the situation with any accuracy and make the claim that anyone was "irresponsible"?)
i will get back to this later
so... the cop was irresponsible and by definition committed a criminal act of negligence and the existing law was not enforced.
(see a trend yet?)
1- was he honest enough to admit irresponsibility when it presented itself?
2- if he died as an act of negligence on his part (via leaving out an unsupervised firearm) then that is irresponsible.
so again - it is an act of negligence and is covered under the law. it should be prosecuted.
regardless of your interpretations of it... it still boils down to: enforcing the laws we have.
doesn't matter if the person is a first time gun owner with 10 min experience or a life-long retired cop, JSOC soldier and ninja
regardless of your interpretations of it... it still boils down to: enforcing the laws we have.
doesn't matter if the person is a first time gun owner with 10 min experience or a life-long retired cop, JSOC soldier and ninja
beating a dead horse won't give it life... so reiterating a point that has already been discussed and using it to justify your beliefs isn't going to change how the law reads...
okay... you were doing good until the semi-colon
yes, it IS worthy of study... however, i don't see where you can lead into "it's an unrealistic proposition"... and yes, they likely have committed the acts before... but then again, this is what made them irresponsible and criminally negligent, which brings us back to: existing laws and the enforcement thereof
actually, you're wrong. it has EVERY place in this discussion because, as you've pointed out above and listed in your arguments: you are far more likely to not be prosecuted if you are a certain race, have a certain social standing or have sh*t loads of money.
...and that leads us back to the actual laws that aren't enforced, really.
the law is clear: if it is a violation, it should be prosecuted. PERIOD
this is what i've been saying from the beginning.
you do realise that, right?
you are repeating the same stuff over and over and the point keeps coming back to your assumption that i don't agree with prosecuting a criminal act. You assume that, because i don't advocate for the punishment of a victim of a crime (someone who's weapon was stolen but used in a crime) that i don't advocate for the punishment of criminal acts... but as i stated: if it is a criminal act, it should be prosecuted.
the law is clear and concise, and i've not deviated from it... and the "defninition" of a responsible gun owner is one who obey the law and does'nt violate the rights of others... BUT (even with the above example) the argument you are making above and all through this thread keeps referring to the lack of prosecution of said laws.
that is not something i advocate any more than i would advocate removing the rights from women to vote.
i did address the issue: we have existing laws that are not properly applied or enforced.
there is no point to dispute...
until you can actually come to grips with the facts behind your motivations, you can't actually think that changing the topic and attacking it from a different angle is going to help... right?
your thread topic is the same thing
in Ethics, morality and Justice, the thread name/topic is Firearms and Freedom
simple fact: we should be free to own firearms for whatever purpose because it is a constitutional right... and it is also a fundamental right and built in by nature to have a desire to protect ones-self...
your arguments on the thread are anti-gun and based upon a huge logical fallacy because you are pissed that existing laws are not enforced ... and this is evidence because in your OP you state "Thus, "responsible gun owner" neighbors, it's your turn."...
you intentionally brought that topic up so that you could point to idiot irresponsible gun owners and say "see. you are all alike" or "you're responsible till you aren't".... but that is NOT the case.
you want to remove "freedom" because of a problem you have with "justice"
they're not the same thing, you know
so the topic and my arguments are based on your listed threat title of freedom and firearms
Let's expand a bit.
What about incidents of road rage? Remove everyone's driving privilege because one dumb son-of-a-bitch used his vehicle to deliberately harm someone?
Driving is regulated and taxed, just as firearm ownership is. I'll just bet that more people die from traffic-related incidents than do from gunshot wounds.
What about incidents of road rage? Remove everyone's driving privilege because one dumb son-of-a-bitch used his vehicle to deliberately harm someone?
Driving is regulated and taxed, just as firearm ownership is. I'll just bet that more people die from traffic-related incidents than do from gunshot wounds.
now lets get back to this...
lets just take myself as an example (relevant, too)
I'm a former soldier and i've practiced Martial Arts since my older brothers got me into it at age 6. I've competed world-wide and even in full-contact competitions. I've done MMA fighting and street fighting as well as military fighting. I was injured in the military and suffer nerve damage in the feet, legs and back.
Now, as a disabled vet, you are suggesting that i disarm myself and risk my family because i know martial arts?
of course, we can also put your argument to the elderly woman down the street from me when i was in Miami... she was 86. frail. should she be studying martial arts to defend herself because she is poor can can't afford to leave her home in a crime riddled gang neighborhood? it is all she's ever had and it is the only reason she is surviving... so should we disarm her and force her to use Karate against armed criminals seeking an easy payday?
that is exactly what your post suggests...
now, i applaud the friend who got rid of the handgun because they know martial arts. When i was more physically able to move, i didn't feel the need for a handgun either (i only carried out of a job requirement). So, because i am not only experienced but also well trained... should i risk my life and the life of my family by attempting to relive the glory of my youth and earlier mobility?
nonsensical argument
it is not logical to assume that learning martial arts makes you competent enough to disarm an armed opponent ... any more than it is logical to assume that flying a fighter or helicopter on the PS3 in GTA-V makes you competent enough to fly one in real life
so... what you are saying is: lets demonstrate a personal callous regard for the life of the elderly and youth by disarming the public for the sake of delusion?
lets just take myself as an example (relevant, too)
I'm a former soldier and i've practiced Martial Arts since my older brothers got me into it at age 6. I've competed world-wide and even in full-contact competitions. I've done MMA fighting and street fighting as well as military fighting. I was injured in the military and suffer nerve damage in the feet, legs and back.
Now, as a disabled vet, you are suggesting that i disarm myself and risk my family because i know martial arts?
of course, we can also put your argument to the elderly woman down the street from me when i was in Miami... she was 86. frail. should she be studying martial arts to defend herself because she is poor can can't afford to leave her home in a crime riddled gang neighborhood? it is all she's ever had and it is the only reason she is surviving... so should we disarm her and force her to use Karate against armed criminals seeking an easy payday?
that is exactly what your post suggests...
now, i applaud the friend who got rid of the handgun because they know martial arts. When i was more physically able to move, i didn't feel the need for a handgun either (i only carried out of a job requirement). So, because i am not only experienced but also well trained... should i risk my life and the life of my family by attempting to relive the glory of my youth and earlier mobility?
nonsensical argument
it is not logical to assume that learning martial arts makes you competent enough to disarm an armed opponent ... any more than it is logical to assume that flying a fighter or helicopter on the PS3 in GTA-V makes you competent enough to fly one in real life
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You didn't even read the stats did you? Here they are again:
"Here's how these incidents ended. More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun."
Tell me how these stats support your claim that people freeze up?
How could they be higher when the rest of the time the shooter was either running away, shot himself, or was killed by police? You're just making shit up because you're losing the argument. Why don't you address those studies I listed. You know, the one you promised you were going to read?
It was mentioned in the stats. Only once was the shooter stopped by an armed citizen. Now what does that tell you about the likelihood of stopping a shooter with a gun?
The stats speak for themselves. It is you who is touting the negative thesis that unarmed people are too scared to do anything about a shooter.
I will continue to call you out on your paranoid lifestyle and the easy access to guns that that mentality thrives upon and the unsafe situations it creates. It's called free speech. Remember THAT amendment?
Oh and here's another article for you to ignore:
The Myth of the Good Guy with the Gun:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
Last edited:
considering i never mentioned an actual study with regard to that subject, do you really want to put words into my mouth and then create an argument based on something i never said?
actually, it is where i quote: read the above posts and don't put words in my mouth
.
how many total people were there and aware of the situation. i noticed it didn't actually show that number...
it said:
it states incidents. i didn't see a number of overall civilians or non-criminal people who were a part of the scene by accident or design
until you can produce a number saying that each incident had "X number" people, then i can take any number of those statistics and make a wide variety of claims, can't i? just like you are doing
so, in light of your choice of selective argument i chose a specific number based upon your post using your same tactic which actually ignores all the relevant data to support a conclusion.
isn't that the whole point of your post here:
Lets look at this for a minute
this takes an assumption -that you can be unarmed and be just as effective or more effective than an armed criminal/person- and extrapolates from your personal bias that because you can think of a situation that you would be able to handle, then everyone else should be capable of or willing to do the same.
Now, you said you had military experience... would you trust each and every person in, say... your basic training unit, a biased but fair look at the general populace... would you assume that the bulk of them, on the first day of training, would rush to protect you from an armed assailant potentially losing their life to save yours?
more importantly, this ignores the potential training and background of not only the civilians around you, but also the criminal.
1- i haven't finished them
2- i've not finished my research on them
so... what you want is not an accurate or well thought out answer but a seat-of-the-pants discussion about a topic that you took some time to research?
shall i be accurate or just rant, like you just did?
let me know so i can adjust accordingly
first of all... i never stated "that unarmed people are too scared to do anything about a shooter"... that is all on you and your intentional misrepresentation/cognitive bias... i stated "a person who is untrained is by far more likely to seize up than "grab and tackle the shooter" "
For two:
the stats do NOT speak for themselves.
how can they accurately reflect the statistical probability of being rescued or helped by an unarmed "good samaritan" when it nowhere or in any way addresses the actual numbers of the local populace that is around or aware of the situation?
so, you're telling me that, based upon those numbers in the study you linked... you would be willing to bet your own life on a situation that has, say... 3 unarmed random people? you would be willing to bet your life that of those three people, at least 1 would help you if an armed criminal were to accost you or attempt to harm you in a criminal act?
ok... now lets be realistic.... start making changes to who those three people are: say, a Nun, a teenager and a pregnant woman. or three 30-40ish males with beerguts... you can play the game all day long and come up with different results.
and again, assuming that you would be helped without being able to quantify said decision is called personal conjecture. you can't use that study to prove that X number of people will likely react because you still can't give a quantity of people in every "incident" in said study.
do you really think unarmed people are more likely to help you against an armed assailant?
have you never actually traveled to places like NYC, Miami, Chicago, LA, etc?
i wouldn't make that assumption!
Wait... i am not the one being paranoid here... you are the one doing that
and i would never, ever refuse you to any fundamental right OR constitutional right... it's one of the reasons i will continue to support the 2nd... because i truly believe in the rights guaranteed under the constitution.
here, let me fix that for you: The Myth of the Good Guy
there is no such thing
PS to magical realist
you know, this is exactly what you are doing, right?
even to the point of making up what i said...
you know, like this
or this
and this is just in the last post you made
i've never once advocated for anything but adherence to the law and constitution, bubba...
so saying my attitude of strict adherence to the law and constitution creates "that that mentality thrives upon and the unsafe situations it creates" makes you look like a paranoid delusional illiterate, IMHO
think on that a spell
If we make guns illegal, you will still be able to obtain guns on the black market. This means, even of guns are illegal, criminals and lawless will still have access. Only the good citizens will be disarmed.
If you go to the black market, window shopping, you can see drugs and hookers, even though these have been illegal for decades or longer. There are laws against these things, which any good citizens will obey. But if you are not afraid and decide you want such things, you can still get these things.
The conservatives who see the anti-gun lobby wishing to make guns illegal, sees themselves being placed in a bad position. Since criminals are exempt from law; part of the dual standard, they will still have guns from the black market. The good people will disarm and become easy victims. A good person who does not want to be victimized may justify the need to become lawless, and go to the black market to get a gun for self defense. Now they are stained; lesser of two evils.
The bottom line is if guns become illegal, you will still be able to buy them. Anyone not afraid to enter the black market can still get guns, with criminals the main shoppers. This may not bother liberals since most criminals are liberals, allowing the liberals to end up with the majority of guns. The link below states that 7 of 10 felons are registered as Democrats.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-nearly-34-felons-register-as-democrats/article/2541412
If you go to the black market, window shopping, you can see drugs and hookers, even though these have been illegal for decades or longer. There are laws against these things, which any good citizens will obey. But if you are not afraid and decide you want such things, you can still get these things.
The conservatives who see the anti-gun lobby wishing to make guns illegal, sees themselves being placed in a bad position. Since criminals are exempt from law; part of the dual standard, they will still have guns from the black market. The good people will disarm and become easy victims. A good person who does not want to be victimized may justify the need to become lawless, and go to the black market to get a gun for self defense. Now they are stained; lesser of two evils.
The bottom line is if guns become illegal, you will still be able to buy them. Anyone not afraid to enter the black market can still get guns, with criminals the main shoppers. This may not bother liberals since most criminals are liberals, allowing the liberals to end up with the majority of guns. The link below states that 7 of 10 felons are registered as Democrats.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-nearly-34-felons-register-as-democrats/article/2541412
I don't dispute the statistics, even though I quoted Twain earlier, but why do you think that is? More importantly, are these felony convictions gun-related? Do you have any "damned lies" (a la Twain) to support it?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
So again, how do the stats support your claim that unarmed people are more likely to seize up. They didn't seize up in 13% of the incidents. That completely refutes your claim.
Absolutely is 5 people rushing 1 guy with a gun more effective than the guy with the gun. That's common sense.
I'd expect them to rush the assailant saving mine and their own lives in the process.
LOL! It doesn't take training to rush an armed shooter. As the stats indicate, it happens quite often in shootings. Wouldn't you do it if you didn't have a gun?
You're ignoring data I've posted that refutes your position that carrying guns makes the world a safer place. You've had several days to go over them. What's wrong? Can't argue with actual research?
It's the same thing since unarmed people would only "seize up" out of fear.
LOL! I bet my life on that everyday in that I continuously mingle in crowds and go to public places without carrying a gun or having an armed escort. But as I said the chances of this happening are so slim it's not even worth worrying about. Only paranoid gun freaks like you think about how they're going to get shot every day by some other pissed off gun carrier. That's your little world, not mine sweetie.
I don't even think about that. Why do you? Paranoid much?
I go out every day without ever thinking about getting shot. You go out every day with a gun anticipating constantly how you will be shot at and how your carrying a gun will prevent that from happening. Not only is that paranoid, it's delusional. People who carry guns are 4 times more likely to get shot at than people who don't. Your own sick desire to shoot at people backfires on you. Something poetically just about that wouldn't you say?
The constitution says nothing about being able to carry a gun everywhere. As I already showed you, many places even ban guns. So obviously carrying guns creates a dangerous situation in certain places. Why would it only be dangerous in SOME situations but not all situations? That's a question you have yet to answer.
What do you expect from yourself?
Do you live in a fantasy? Or a utopian city where everyone smiles, and no one is armed with anything more devastating than a box-cutter?
Where's the realist in you, dude? We can all see the "magical" part...
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I'd be rushing the gun carrier too. I assumed that was a given.
I've never encountered anyone with a gun in public yet. How many times have you? What reality do you live in?
"You have about a 1/12,000,000 chance of being shot in a mass shooting. There are over 300 million people in America, and an extremely small percentage of those people die from a mass shooting ( Around 25 or so, maybe more ). Its more likely to die in a car crash, to die tripping onto the ground, or to die by drowning in your bathtub."===https://www.reddit.com/r/morbidques...hat_are_the_odds_of_getting_killed_in_a_mass/
I live in Portland btw. Nobody I know carries any weapon with them in public. No..not even a boxcutter. lol!
Last edited: