So long as stats and science are not intentionally skewed to prove a predecided answerThey aren't irrelevancies. Statistics are supposed to give you a rough idea of what happens on a larger scale, not a litmus test of the individual.I assumed we were talking about laws and policy. Since we're the 3rd most populous nation on the planet, with over 300 million people, shouldn't we use statistics and science instead of personal anecdotes to make decisions?
Yeah, I feel justified in predeciding that I would like to limit my chances of being shot. I don't want to try that one out.
If you need a more realistic one, try this: An individual tells you that people of your color arent welcome into his business. OR A government tells you that people of your color arent allowed to enter into a business that caters to people of a different color.
Which one is easier to hold accountable?
If you need a more realistic one, try this: An individual tells you that people of your color arent welcome into his business. OR A government tells you that people of your color arent allowed to enter into a business that caters to people of a different color.
Which one is easier to hold accountable?
Well, based on history, the civil rights movement was able to convince the federal government to change faster than a majority of individuals in the South.
The government gets held accountable all the time. Maybe not enough, and not in the ways YOU want it to be. I remember the Walter Reed hospital scandal. A lot of things changed about veterans services. My mother works as a social worker at a VA hospital, she's mentioned several times how political pressure has forced changes both on an institutional and individual case level.
The government would be easier to hold accountable when people stop trying to treat it as some sort of 'other' and instead saw it as their duty to more fully participate.
If you need a more realistic one, try this: An individual tells you that people of your color arent welcome into his business. OR A government tells you that people of your color arent allowed to enter into a business that caters to people of a different color.
Which one is easier to hold accountable?
I don't know. Do I get to use the government to back me up in the first case?
If not, the process is about the same: Start or join a mass Civil Rights Movement. Convince the government to back you up.
Sure. Use the all the tools at your disposal. The assertion was that its easier to hold a government seeking to do you harm accountable than it is to hold an individual seeking to do you harm accountable. No Rambo fantasies. No complete lack of government in any examples. I have no idea where those came from, certainly not from me.
They aren't irrelevancies. Statistics are supposed to give you a rough idea of what happens on a larger scale, not a litmus test of the individual.I assumed we were talking about laws and policy. Since we're the 3rd most populous nation on the planet, with over 300 million people, shouldn't we use statistics and science instead of personal anecdotes to make decisions?
No, I was talking about statistics.
Peace of mind, you mean? Maybe.More like a trick of human perception.
Something seems more safe when it's not because it's under your control.
It's an understandable response to stimuli, but it doesn't make it a rational one.
I suppose not. But, from my point of view, I have a 100% success rate as a gun owner. Neither I, nor anyone one in my family that currently or previously owns(ed) a firearm(s) has had a mishap. We all grew up respecting firearms. Those of us with children have taught them to do so as well. This may be anecdotal, but it is empirical data from my point of view. It's what we in my family have observed and experienced.
Is it more rational to believe that suddenly for no reason other than because something is statisticly possible, one or all of us will face a firearm accident? Are we destined to have one?
The swimming pool is valid simply becasue it's presence on your property increases the chance of drowning for the owner or his family.
Owning a gas oven increases the fire hazard risk, but the benefit of owning a gas oven outweighs the safety risk. The benefit, in this case, is the ability to cook food in an oven.
In the case of firearms, however, the benefit and risk are the same thing (just in opposite directions). Gun rights advocates insist that guns make them safer, while statistics demonstrate that guns make them less safe.
What you are effectively claiming is that the moderate increased safety that guns give you outweighs the much greater decrease in safety.
That doesn't sound a little crazy to you? Because it's crazy.
Yes.
Why?
No, I was talking about statistics.They aren't irrelevancies. Statistics are supposed to give you a rough idea of what happens on a larger scale, not a litmus test of the individual.I assumed we were talking about laws and policy. Since we're the 3rd most populous nation on the planet, with over 300 million people, shouldn't we use statistics and science instead of personal anecdotes to make decisions?
I haven't seen you talk about modeling or data collection yet.
I suppose not. But, from my point of view, I have a 100% success rate as a gun owner. Neither I, nor anyone one in my family that currently or previously owns(ed) a firearm(s) has had a mishap. We all grew up respecting firearms. Those of us with children have taught them to do so as well. This may be anecdotal, but it is empirical data from my point of view. It's what we in my family have observed and experienced.
Is it more rational to believe that suddenly for no reason other than because something is statisticly possible, one or all of us will face a firearm accident? Are we destined to have one?
Have you ever used your firearm for its intended purpose? Presumably to ward off an armed intruder intent on doing you harm? If not then it's a wash--for now. As X approaches infinity one or the other will happen.
Also "for no reason other than" is a big reason. For no reason other than...learning that something is more dangerous than you'd thought. It's about change of information, not of the actual chances of an injury. It's food for thought for everyone IMO.
Let me ask you something else as well: would you ever feel the need to protect your home with an AR-15?
|
I suppose not. But, from my point of view, I have a 100% success rate as a gun owner. Neither I, nor anyone one in my family that currently or previously owns(ed) a firearm(s) has had a mishap. We all grew up respecting firearms. Those of us with children have taught them to do so as well. This may be anecdotal, but it is empirical data from my point of view. It's what we in my family have observed and experienced.
Is it more rational to believe that suddenly for no reason other than because something is statisticly possible, one or all of us will face a firearm accident? Are we destined to have one?
Have you ever used your firearm for its intended purpose? Presumably to ward off an armed intruder intent on doing you harm? If not then it's a wash--for now. As X approaches infinity one or the other will happen.
Also "for no reason other than" is a big reason. For no reason other than...learning that something is more dangerous than you'd thought. It's about change of information, not of the actual chances of an injury. It's food for thought for everyone IMO.
Let me ask you something else as well: would you ever feel the need to protect your home with an AR-15?
Personally no, but a high capacity short barrel or handgun maybe. But i cannot fault any one else for wanting the best weapon possible, based on what they think works for them. personally i find large firearms impractical for close quarters.
That said i came very close to using a .22 to deal with a domestic dispute that i worried may have ended badly
If you need a more realistic one, try this: An individual tells you that people of your color arent welcome into his business. OR A government tells you that people of your color arent allowed to enter into a business that caters to people of a different color.
Which one is easier to hold accountable?
The business. I can have a lynch mob at Bob's bar in 2 minutes flat. Getting things done through a legislative process backed by the military and de facto controlled by whoever pays them the most is much harder.
The swimming pool is valid simply becasue it's presence on your property increases the chance of drowning for the owner or his family.Owning a gas oven increases the fire hazard risk, but the benefit of owning a gas oven outweighs the safety risk. The benefit, in this case, is the ability to cook food in an oven.
In the case of firearms, however, the benefit and risk are the same thing (just in opposite directions). Gun rights advocates insist that guns make them safer, while statistics demonstrate that guns make them less safe.
What you are effectively claiming is that the moderate increased safety that guns give you outweighs the much greater decrease in safety.
That doesn't sound a little crazy to you? Because it's crazy.
Crazy would be me saying it makes me feel safer, after I've shot myself 2 or 3 times. That has not happened. If I do shoot myself in the foot...
Except I don't insist they make me safer. Their mere presence in the house doesn't give me comfort per se, other than the knowledge that if needed, it's there.
Also, again, when viewing a large pool of people, the statistics tell you that over a large group of people, they tend to be less safe. Statistics are not indicators of pre-destiny or meant to reflect upon an individual, per se.
Using an old phrase, it's like a condom. I'd rather have it, and not need it, then need it, and not have it.
Yes.Why?
Becasue then, I have proven that I am no longer capable of owning a firearm without incident.
It's like keeping a dangerous breed of dog I suppose. Once you are no longer capable of controlling it, it's time for it to go.
I suppose not. But, from my point of view, I have a 100% success rate as a gun owner. Neither I, nor anyone one in my family that currently or previously owns(ed) a firearm(s) has had a mishap. We all grew up respecting firearms. Those of us with children have taught them to do so as well. This may be anecdotal, but it is empirical data from my point of view. It's what we in my family have observed and experienced.
Is it more rational to believe that suddenly for no reason other than because something is statisticly possible, one or all of us will face a firearm accident? Are we destined to have one?
Have you ever used your firearm for its intended purpose? Presumably to ward off an armed intruder intent on doing you harm? If not then it's a wash--for now. As X approaches infinity one or the other will happen.
Also "for no reason other than" is a big reason. For no reason other than...learning that something is more dangerous than you'd thought. It's about change of information, not of the actual chances of an injury. It's food for thought for everyone IMO.
Let me ask you something else as well: would you ever feel the need to protect your home with an AR-15?
I already answered this one: nope. If a pistol won't do, nothing will.
This is blatantly not true. Look at my posts in the other gun thread that got locked, especially toward the end.
I don't use, and don't need an AR-15 for home defense.
You objected to an assault weapons/high capacity magazine ban as a violation of the constitution.
You objected to having your (theoretical) ability to buy an ar 15 curtailed by someone elses stupidity (undermining the basis for pretty much any law, ever)
You may not need or use them but you're arguing against any rational or mechanism for outlawing their manufacture. Its incredibly arbitrary to say that there's nothing unconstitutional with current arms restrictions but slightly more restrictive gun legislation would be.
I have, but I did not argue against stricter legislation for AR-15's, which I think is what you said.
I have said I think AR-15's should be rolled into requiring a class III firearm license. It's tougher to get, costs more, but you can still own one if you wish. I've also said magazines higher than 10 (or 9+1) round capacity should fall into this as well. That way clip-fed semi-auto rifles have the same capacity as a pistol or less.
When someone argues against banning the weapon, they are told "no one here is calling for that". Now when saying AR-15's should be available but harder to get, aka tougher gun legislation, now it's "yeah but you think banning them is against the constituion". Is this moving the goal posts, or are there multiple conversations going on at once here? Who is trying to make what point?
I'm for banning lots of guns.
|
would you ever feel the need to protect your home with an AR-15?
The .223/5.56 round is a good round for home defense actually. It is not prone to over penetration like most "handgun" rounds are (such as the 9mm or .45 ACP). When the .223/5.56 round hits a solid object (such as bone or a wall - even drywall), the round either shatters (and is thus no longer a threat to anyone else), or loses most of its energy upon impact and then "keyholes" (which means it is either tumbling or literally flying sideways), in which case the round usually does not travel any further than 2 typical interior walls, which are, at least here in America, made up of two separate sheets of drywall; one on each side (obviously, thicker walls will stop the round sooner)...
I'm for banning lots of guns.
At what level? Outlawing their manufacture, or amending/removing the 2nd amendment?
would you ever feel the need to protect your home with an AR-15?The .223/5.56 round is a good round for home defense actually. It is not prone to over penetration like most "handgun" rounds are (such as the 9mm or .45 ACP). When the .223/5.56 round hits a solid object (such as bone or a wall - even drywall), the round either shatters (and is thus no longer a threat to anyone else), or loses most of its energy upon impact and then "keyholes" (which means it is either tumbling or literally flying sideways), in which case the round does not travel any further than 2 typical interior walls, which are, at least here in America, made up of two sheets of drywall; one on each side (obviously, thicker walls, will stop the round sooner)...
I use .40 S&W hollowpoints. It will "mushroom" on what I hit, and stop (theoreticly), limiting penetration and unintended targets.
I already answered this one: nope. If a pistol won't do, nothing will.
You didn't answer the first question I posed (unless this quite is supposed to answer both questions).
Have you ever used your firearm for its intended purpose?
I'm for banning lots of guns.At what level? Outlawing their manufacture, or amending/removing the 2nd amendment?
I think removing the 2nd amendment is just a no-go, but banning their manufacture would be a good step. Then all the "but criminals won't obey the law anyway" arguments will eventually be moot because the weapons aren't being manufactured here.
I use .40 S&W hollowpoints. It will "mushroom" on what I hit, and stop (theoreticly), limiting penetration and unintended targets.
Wanna know what I use to protect my home?
I lock the door :)
I already answered this one: nope. If a pistol won't do, nothing will.
You didn't answer the first question I posed (unless this quite is supposed to answer both questions).
Have you ever used your firearm for its intended purpose?
No, not yet, thank God.
I use .40 S&W hollowpoints. It will "mushroom" on what I hit, and stop (theoreticly), limiting penetration and unintended targets.Wanna know what I use to protect my home?
I lock the door :)
Me too! That's the first line of defense ;)
If a person breaks into my house with the intent ot rob me, and they stay downstairs where my stuff is, chances are I won't confront them. My stuff isn't necessarily worth someone's life.
If they at some point decide to come upstairs where my fiance and I sleep, that's when I will confront them while armed and ask them to leave. If they do not immediately comply, I'm shooting.
Plans often don't survive contact with the enemy, but that's the plan.
I'm not going to go hunting for strangers in my house. I don't want to shoot anybody, if I don't have to.
If someone breaks into my home with the intent to rob me, they'll have to knock down the door in its entirety or have a key. Since the latter is not bloody likely, the former will almost certainly wake up all my neighbors. Since the only thing of any substantial value outside my home is my television, I figure worse comes to worst I attack with my sword while his hands are full of LCD.
Not a bad plan.
I have a kukri and a couple combat worthy swords too, but that's not what I bought them for.
You know, just by having swords in your house, you greatly increase your chances of being injured by one ;)
I should say, probably too late, but since that's what the title of this thread implies it's for:
Wayne LaPierre is an idiot. Video games do not make people kill folks.
I do not belong to the NRA.
Not a bad plan.
I have a kukri and a couple combat worthy swords too, but that's not what I bought them for.You know, just by having swords in your house, you greatly increase your chances of being injured by one ;)
It's true. I dropped mine on my foot once, handle first. I think I may have broken my pinkie toe!
Not a bad plan.
I have a kukri and a couple combat worthy swords too, but that's not what I bought them for.You know, just by having swords in your house, you greatly increase your chances of being injured by one ;)
Yes but i can say with more experience than i'd like that they're normally the sort of injuries you can fix with superglue: its very hard to actually kill yourself with your own sword and swords are probably harder to accidentally kill someone with than a knife.
All true!
I haven't cut myself with any of my swords or knives, though.
What am I not doing right? Am I supposed to swing 'em around more?
:)
I'm for banning lots of guns.At what level? Outlawing their manufacture, or amending/removing the 2nd amendment?
It'll never happen, but the 2nd amendment needs to go. After that I'd like to see handguns nearly abolished.
Crime needs to be addressed by looking at the root causes, not by shooting at suspected criminals.
It'll never happen, but the 2nd amendment needs to go. After that I'd like to see handguns nearly abolished.
Crime needs to be addressed by looking at the root causes, not by shooting at suspected criminals.
When you discover a cure for crime, please let me know. I have a few hundred inmates I deal with every day who really would be better off if they knew.
My elderly aunt stopped a group of carjackers by brandishing her gun. I once stopped the burglary of my house, brandishing a gun. My uncle (a police officer) successfully subdued and apprehended several murderous gang members by brandishing his sidearm. My father persuaded a criminal to stop threatening my sister (who was giving testimony against the criminal) by convincing the man's unidentified accomplices that our family was prepared to defend themselves.
In none of those situations was a gun fired.
Where did you get the idea that shooting at suspected criminals is the only way that reasonable people defend themselves?
When you discover a cure for crime, please let me know. I have a few hundred inmates I deal with every day who really would be better off if they knew.
You haven't heard? It's called a fair distribution of wealth and income. Crazy idea: people don't steal when they can afford to buy it. People don't lash out and kill people when they don't feel socioeconomically oppressed. Unless they're crazy, but then, we're (almost) all on board with universal healthcare and that includes mental health, so...
Perhaps I've overstated it, wealth distribution and universal healthcare won't solve ALL crime, just about 90% of violent crime. Which is all you need guns for, because if you're using your gun to shoot someone for trespassing or mail fraud then you're a lunatic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
maybe we could start another thread about stopping crime, and maybe another about stopping war.
Because really, in the end, what is it good for?
Do you honestly believe that very many murders are committed because people are "socioeconomically oppressed"? I recommend the work of Dr. Stanton Samenow, whose books discuss "criminal thinking" in great detail. (I do concede that Dr. Samenow's conclusions are colored by the nature of the criminal population with which he worked.)
Do you honestly believe that very many murders are committed because people are "socioeconomically oppressed"?
Um. Yes? At least indirectly.
Or do you think it's merely because of the moral failings of people who HAPPEN to be underprivileged?
You aren't going to stop crimes of passion, but I'm going to go on a limb and say that the majority of murders aren't crimes of passion or revenge.
But you didn't comment specifically about murders, you commented about CRIME, and I'm also going to go on a limb and say that murder isn't the most common crime committed.
Fun fact: one in six people incarcerated in the United States are there because of marijuana possession. Marijuana was originally criminalized so that racist a$*+$~$s had a reason to harass Mexican migrant workers.
Do you honestly believe that very many murders are committed because people are "socioeconomically oppressed"?
Given that criminality tracks fairly close to socioeconomic disadvantage, I'd say that you'd have to be woefully uninformed to believe that socioeconomic status and criminality are unrelated.
|
|
Do you honestly believe that very many murders are committed because people are "socioeconomically oppressed"?Um. Yes? At least indirectly.
Or do you think it's merely because of the moral failings of people who HAPPEN to be underprivileged?
You aren't going to stop crimes of passion, but I'm going to go on a limb and say that the majority of murders aren't crimes of passion or revenge.
But you didn't comment specifically about murders, you commented about CRIME, and I'm also going to go on a limb and say that murder isn't the most common crime committed.
Fun fact: one in six people incarcerated in the United States are there because of marijuana possession. Marijuana was originally criminalized so that racist a~#!#%@s had a reason to harass Mexican migrant workers.
Damn right it IS moral failure. no matter how poor you are it is still a choice. no matter your race, it is a choice.
Damn right it IS moral failure. no matter how poor you are it is still a choice. no matter your race, it is a choice.
So then you must believe that minorities are inherently inferior to you since they commit more crimes. Right?
That logically follows. If you say it is a moral failing and ONLY a moral failing that precludes that one's environment exerts pressures on your behavior, thus those that commit crimes are SIMPLY less moral than those that don't. No one denies that minorities commit more crimes, just that I tend to think it has less to do with race and more to do with their socioeconomic status, hence the similar figures for poor whites.
But, ya know, clearly I'm wrong and minorities are simply immoral?