Guns don't kill people ....

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

Now you see, Spex...there you go again ASSuming. Why do you ASSume that I purposefully did something to piss him off? Because I had a gun? If that was the case, why would I have gone out of my way to avoid the guy? Actually, he was trying to pass everyone before the two lanes narrowed to one. He did not make it in time and had to get behind me. That sent him into an uncontrolled rage. I have never seen someone act like that behind the wheel. I seriously though he was going to ram me. I'll admit, I was scared. That's why I did NOT stop...I know what would have happened.

Sure, you were completely innocent.

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Sure, you were completely innocent.

Oh Spexx, shove it up your liberal, gun-hating ass. It must be nice to know everything. You should run for Messiah.

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by BigV

Your complaints sound whiny. There's no "argument".

Am I losing my other "argument" by calling the shooters in CO and WI "fucking homicidal nutball assholes"? Just curious.



I have not carried a concealed weapon.

I do not concede the point that a lack of direct experience means my argument is faulty. You and I both live our lives, speak and act correctly and with confidence in a multitude of situations where we have no direct experience. It is not a deal breaker. We can debate this point, but only if you insist.


What I think you're saying is that by having your gun with you, you knew there was a pretty good possibility you might have to shoot to kill if you faced off with him, and you didn't want that to happen, so you took other measures. Does that sound right? Here's my question: what the fuck does the gun have to do with anything in that situation with respect to being more cautious and conscientious? If you didn't have your gun, would you have pulled over and taken your chances? If you didn't have your gun could/would you have used evasive driving and lost the guy?

Are you less cautious and conscientious when you are not carrying your gun? That's my question.

If your answer is yes, then you fucking scare me. "I need my gun to keep me calm". JFC.

If your answer is no, then your argument is invalid. You're cautious and conscientious WITH your concealed weapon, AND you're cautious and conscientious WITHOUT your weapon. Which was my original point. It isn't the gun. (and if it is, and I think it might be for some people, heaven help us all).


There are lots of things I don't know--talking about them is part of how I learn about them. There are lots of things I know *some* stuff about, and I talk about them too. This subject falls into that category. Specifically, what makes people cautious, and what doesn't make people cautious; things that are dangerous and things that are less dangerous. So, I'm clear to speak and act in this kind of discussion, with authority. I do know what I'm talking about.


By your own logic, you're losing your argument. Unless you just think I look stupid. Which is fine, no? You sound whiny, and I look stupid. I'll make you a deal--you stop looking at me and I'll quit listening to you.

Big V, we will agree to disagree. You'll just twist any explanation I counter with to paint me as a gun-toting psycho. So, we'll just leave it there.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by BigV

... Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.

I respectfully disagree BigV. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts and the fact is that you can't read the minds of people while they are carrying guns to know whether or not they take the responsibility seriously enough to adjust their behaviors accordingly.

I've carried concealed firearms both off duty and on duty, both in the US and other countries as a representative of the US. I've always had a heightened sense of the ramifications of my actions due to the complexities that carrying a lethal weapon introduces into my routine, ramifications that aren't there when I'm not carrying.

I also have a heightened sense of the ramifications of my actions when I'm driving a car as opposed to riding a bicycle, roller skating; or, jogging as I know that running into someone with a car is far more likely to have serious consequences in the way of morbidity and mortality.

The situation is similar when using power tools and I believe it applies to most people. These behavior trends don't just disappear for the sake of a position in a debate. Using those people who are exceptions in the aforementioned situations to extrapolate a generality discredits the position for me.

[BigV]

To others reading this thread:

I have not said I think anyone posting here is a gun-toting psycho, nor do I think it without saying it. I think dmg, for example, is cautious and conscientious. I believe the overwhelming majority of gun owners are. Were it otherwise, we'd have a lot more horror stories like the ones in the news recently.

Though dmg has withdrawn, I'd like to take the point he made, the one that is made by others all over the place "I'm more cautious with my gun" (paraphrasing). I honestly believe that's true, but it's true because any reasonable person understands that the presence of a gun makes any given situation more dangerous, therefore justifying more caution. Because of the steepness of the transition between threat and death with guns, reasonable people take extra care. That's a very good thing.

But because it is more dangerous with guns around, that extra caution should include PREcautions. There are many precautions possible. Training, locks, locked cases, strict attention are some examples. I should also include careful consideration of who gets access to guns. And I believe they should be restricted to cautious, conscientious people, like dmg. To attempt to say the presence of a gun makes things safer is just faulty. It isn't the gun that's the danger, right, it's the person. So it should be the person that is subject to much greater scrutiny, if safety truly is one's goal.

dmg, I'm happy to disagree with you, but I think we're not arguing the same point.

[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?

[Lamplighter]

Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying
that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious,
or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious.
It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.

This "Having my CCL (gun) makes me more cautious" argument is literally
making the rounds on the internet among gun-advocate web sites,
and Joe Zamudio is their latest CCL-hero.
They say that he exercised caution and good judgment when he
came to the aid of Rep Gifford in Arizona.
Some of their statements are factual wrong.
And they don't expose one important detail...

MSNBC
Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man
— it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
The gun the older man was holding had been wrestled away from the shooter.
Police later identified 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner as the suspect.

"I could have very easily done the wrong thing and hurt a lot more people,"
said Zamudio, who helped subdue the suspect until authorities arrived.

I'm not denigrating Joe Zamudio. In fact, I was very impressed by him
in interviews at the time where he said his frame of mind was that
he was prepared to his gun, and was only stopped by the shouts of the crowd.

My point is that it is only fantasy to suggest that having a gun will
make a person cautious and rational.
I think it's just as easy to imagine a fantasy of a Mexican Standoff,
or shooting an innocent person... or yourself.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious, or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious. It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.

[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 !

[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.

[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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

Oh Spexx, shove it up your liberal, gun-hating ass. It must be nice to know everything. You should run for Messiah.

This is the internet equivalent of cutting the guy off. Now say "I didn't do anything to make anybody mad". You cut the guy off, because you're self-righteous and the guy was being a dick trying to get ahead of you before the construction, and he should just get behind you in the line of traffic like all the other sheep. And you figured you could do it because if push came to shove, you could protect yourself with your gun. After you calmed down, you realized what a jackass you'd been, and acted like a pussy by running away. We've all done it, just without the gun part. Admit it... you'll feel better.

I'm a liberal, gun-hater? It must be nice to know everything.

I don't need to run for Messiah. I AM the Messiah. You'd better get your shit together or I WILL be sending you to eternal damnation.

For the record, I don't hate guns. I believe that our society needs to take steps to reduce the chance that innocent people will get murdered. It seems to me that, while it won't eliminate it, reducing the number of handguns and assault weapons in the general population is a good start.

[Griff]

Talk of the Nation did a show on guns last week. A lot of it was from a public health perspective. Interesting factoid 60% of gun deaths are suicides. I found this page from the AFSP.

Firearms and Suicide

Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.

I guess to me an interesting stat would be home invasions thwarted, although I couldn't guess what percentage of those are reported.

I see two competing narratives here which make us all less safe. The left demonizes guns to the point where people are prevented from being exposed to a culture of safe handling of firearms, while the right pretends that gun owners are by and large well trained at handling firearms. I'd like to see some thought go into reducing that suicide number.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'd like to see some thought go into reducing that suicide number.

Not being a wise ass, but why? People should be allowed to commit suicide if they want. Frankly, I see suicide as a responsible use of firearms.

[Griff]

I agree with your point with respect to adults, but I see teens as a different situation. That said, I had an older multiple addicted cousin hang himself in his late teens, a gun may have provided a far less traumatic end.