New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The fact they feel they need a gun to wander around in public. They may not be actually dangerous, but I'm going to err on the side of caution because this is a person that thinks they need a gun to wander around in public.

And what about those paranoid bastards who buy fire extinguishers? Obviously they're irresponsible nuts who light their homes on fire all the time.
Preparedness =/= Paranoia
You've said as much that you know the distinction, how about some execution?
By all means, err on the side of caution, just don't see how that necessitates throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I don't know what the hell is going on down there, but up here it's not the job of a security guard to deal with a lethal threat.

So armed security is, what, just for show?
I don't know what's going on up there, but down here we don't carry weapons we don't intend to use if we have to. Moreover, there's the idea that as a person there's a certain obligation to intervene in a bad situation provided you have what it takes to do so.

Actually up here yeah, security guards do what they do for the pay. Because its just a job. Its actually pretty good pay up here if you don't mind working off hours. Police officers up here make pretty good money too. 55k a year for the Vancouver PD for a 1st year constable. Thats the PD too, not the RCMP.

If anything that's a reason not to trust them to protect you. Last time I checked, people chose their professions because it's something they see as worth doing. If all it is to them is money, there's really no reason why they should do anything for you now is there?

CCW holders don't get paid, because they're not doing a job. I'm not sure how they got included in your sentence there.

The, part of the sentence where I talked about how they're doing it in their free time and of their own volition and stuff. Kinda hard to miss, really.

Bullshit. Every person that has chosen to carry a gun is not some sort of superhero. It's not the "right thing to do". You're essentially declaring yourself a vigilante now. It's not your job nor your responsibility, and frankly the mentality you're displaying *does* make me distrust you with a firearm.

Way to blow everything out of proportion. You're honestly telling me that when a police officer takes action to protect you from some threat, the only thing that legitimizes it is the fact that they're paid to do it. As if the cop who's about to blow away the junkie raping you is doing it for the $20 and not because it's the right thing to do, the reason he chose the job he did.

You're basically making the argument that anyone who takes it upon themselves to intervene on behalf of others is flawed and that the only reason why anyone should help someone in need is for the money. That right there is where this all falls apart.

Protecting the innocent from those who wish us harm, upholding law and order, helping people who need help, these are all noble things regardless of your profession. They're why police officers become police officers. But if I believe in all those things and choose to prepare myself to contribute to them it's suddenly insidious because I'm not being payed to do it.

Words cannot describe how backwards that is.

Also bullshit. Again, you're not a hero because you own a gun. I have first aid training all the way up to industrial where I'm trained to recover pieces of you ( and by god that's a vivid course ). I am not a hero because of it. It's not part of my "lifestyle." And when I need to use it, I don't run the risk of randomly injuring or killing bystanders.

Anyone who does good things is a good person. In extraordinary situations those good people become heroes. If saving someone's life, hell, even just helping to save someone's life isn't heroic, nothing is.
Moreover, there's plenty of situations in which poorly applied first aid can do more harm than good, doesn't mean we forbid people from trying their best until the experts arrive.

Getting a tad personal? Thanks for the free psych assessment.

You yourself used your distrust of the population at large as an argument. You can't then complain when I respond to that argument.

I have a better chance of being struck by lightning. Doesn't mean I wander around in a rubber suit every day.

A valid argument if compared to the prospect of perhaps wearing level 4 body armor everywhere and lugging around a SAW. The situations don't line up at all, as there's nothing you can really do for yourself once lightning strikes, no tool you can carry to deal with it once it's happened. In this case prevention is the only option, the same cannot be said for violent assault.

Really, where is this warzone you seem to live in where you have to carry a gun every day to protect yourself from danger?

South-central DC, the Bronx, more or less all of Detroit, etc. in the US. Going abroad, really anywhere in Israel or for that matter most of Africa, most of Cuba, that sort of thing.
The US has a unique problem with violence among so-called 'civilized' nations, but it's far from a unique problem in the world.

Because they're completely incapable of defending themselves in any other way aside from a firearm, so they may as well just roll over and suck it up? Sorry, that's nothing more than bullshit rhetorical.

No one wins a stabbing competition, nor for that matter can you outrun a bullet, or for that matter neither can most people outrun determined pursuers. Nowhere have I said that firearms are the only option, merely that their the pinnacle. Even as such there are situations so stir crazy that nothing at all with help. If they could just GTFO they would have done it, but that's all too often no more an option than blocking bullets with your face.

I wish you'd read as much into your own argument as you apparently are into mine.

Funny, I was about to say the exact same thing, funny, isn't it? I suppose the most civilized course of action between two groups like yours and mine where a fundamental disconnect is all but inevitable would be to just agree to disagree. You live your life your way, I live my life my way. If that were what your side proposed I'd be down with it, but nope, not good enough. We've all your way or the highway.

This discussion is completely pointless obviously. As it always is with this topic. I should have just copy pasted from the last gun thread and saved myself the headache.

I can't say this is the very best debate I've had on the topic, stuck as it was in a miasma of differing definitions, outlooks, and secondary opinions and so forth. As thick as the controversy is, it's far too important to give up on.

[Andara Bledin]

I know, as I said though, they're out there *with* you and probably carrying more ammo. >.>

Considering I don't currently have a gun (don't want one while in an apartment), that is absolutely correct.

Of course, my last firearm was a muzzle loader, so while I had a ton of ammo for it, it wasn't particularly efficient, even when the powder was in pre-measured packets.

I find it amusing how for some the gun debate has a similar emotion-fueled base as a religious debate, and a similar 'one size fits all' mentality.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Ok now you've jumped the shark the pic. What *decade* is that even from?

But you're still arguing that an extremely unlikely scenario could be possibly resolved ( without additional injury or loss of life ) if there was just a miracle gun hero or three somewhere in the crowd with perfect aim, great judgement and who had the foresight to pack hollow point ammunition today because dog gone it! You never know! This is a fantasy scenario. You're living every day like you're going to be struck like lightning, and convinced that unlike everyone else, *you* are made of rubber.

It therefore true that, training mandates and permits aside, CCW holders are already a group that's been thinned from the herd. Add those in and I'd say you've gotten well within the ballpark of refinement that basic LE training provides.

How so? In Arizona for example, you attend a general fire arm safety course, pay a fee, submit a finger print, 60 days later you get a permit if you're not a felon or insane. Yeah thats a hell of a filter. And since the permit really just allows you to zip up your jacket over said gun, its not exactly a factor in everyone else that could just have it out on their hip. Who have not gone had to go through this ardous legal gauntlet that supposedly filters out the twattery as effectively as 8 months of LE training.

Remember again, we're talking about CCW permit holders who are, due to a number of factors, a much different breed of person than the average gun owner.

They had to wait 60 days instead of 3? Much different breed, yes. Definately. >.>

But what's equally humerus is your casual dismissal of an extensive system dedicated to disarming murderers and psychopaths, both of whom again have a nasty tendency to arm themselves in spite of provisions against it, scarcity, etc.

The extensive system that kept it out of the hands of the Arizona shooter? Who was clearly bat shit insane for years before hand? Who armed himself by just walking into the store and buying it 3 days earlier?

I would've imagined that by now it would be common knowledge that opinion polls need no tampering to be inaccurate.

I wouldn've imagined that by now it would be common knowledge that opinion polls always allow for and often state the margin of error.

Yeah, solving math problems amply prepares you for critically observing anything.

.......you...have no idea what critical thinking is do you?

All a civilian self-defense situation needs is a basic knowledge of proportional force and basic gun safety.

We're not talking a self defence situation.

You're still assuming that you have the liberty of choosing who the people around you are when someone starts shooting. You don't, no one does. The Constable, while quite possibly preferable, is only as likely to be there as people like me are. You've faced with a decision of one or both, not either or, and the data is pretty conclusive in that both is the superior option.

Even if the stars align and lightning were to strike near me, I would consider you just as dangerous as the shooter, frankly. It doesn't matter what your intentions are. Someone started shooting, and you started shooting back. Now there's cross fire. Hopefully everyone knows not to run between you, or behind you, or behind him. In their panicked desperate attempts to escape in the confusion with gunshots going off in two different directions.

Given the choice you'd naturally want the better prepared individuals and more of them, but the fact of the matter is that even with the less ideal they're better than nothing and stand to make a contribution in addition to the ideal, so it's a good thing to have both as it increases the likelyhood that some one of them is immediately available.

Given the choice I wouldn't want any guns near me at all. Especially guns held by people overconfident in their ability to use said gun to save the day.

Yeah, because assault rifles have magical minds of their own, and often go off all by themselves. What's more, they insidiously take over the minds of bystanders and incite them to turn into raving psychopaths at the drop of a hat.

You *seriously* can't see how irresponsible that is? Seriously? By your logic the Arizona shooter could have wandered around in the crowd with a gun and anyone who noticed should have just gone "Oh, hey, I bet he's here to protect us!" and not "Oh shit! He he has a gun! Run for it!" which might have actually saved some lives.

But really, seriously. That pic is a shark jump. ;p

[Gravekeeper]

And what about those paranoid bastards who buy fire extinguishers? Obviously they're irresponsible nuts who light their homes on fire all the time.
Preparedness =/= Paranoia

....did you seriously just equate a fire arm with a fire extinguisher? Yeeeaah there's no point talking to you about this in all blunt honesty.

I can't say this is the very best debate I've had on the topic, stuck as it was in a miasma of differing definitions, outlooks, and secondary opinions and so forth. As thick as the controversy is, it's far too important to give up on.

No its not, actually. Its an argument on the Internet. That sets its importance right around "rooster tit" level. It's also fire and water. So this is beyond pointless and certainly not important. ;p

I feel trapped in a particular XKCD comic and really should just stop.

[BlaqueKatt]

the only thing I'm going to ad is that in my state WI, I can legally open carry a firearm. I don't, it stays at home(and locked), however I am a better shot than the "trained Law Enforcement" officers that only need one proficiency test and then less than 5 hours a year range time(with no proficiency rating-armed security guards have higher standards than LE here), as evidenced by the officer shooting at a suspect less than 10 feet away, out of 14 shots, none hit, from 10 feet-and people trust that rather than my ability to hit a target(human shaped) center body mass and headshots, 12 out of 14 shots at 50 feet because they're "trained"?

I cannot even own the following, they are illegal:
a collapsible baton
a kubaton
a taser
rubber bullets
pepper spray
Mace

so nothing at all that is non lethal is even an option for self-defense, I'd rather have a non lethal option, but my state says it's too dangerous, but I can carry a firearm, and apparently that's not as dangerous.

they still have not caught or have any leads on the murder that occurred less than 6 blocks from where I live, where the 911 call from the victim screaming for help while being stabbed, was ignored and not followed up on, until her fiance found her body and called 48 minutes later. My stepbrother was murdered, along with three of his friends. I had someone attempt to break into my apartment while I was sleeping, found the prybar embedded in the wooden window frame. I look off my back balcony and hey there's a halfway house for sex offenders-AWESOME! So yeah I'm a bit paranoid.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Ok now you've jumped the shark the pic. What *decade* is that even from?

The decade of funny.

But you're still arguing that an extremely unlikely scenario could be possibly resolved ( without additional injury or loss of life ) if there was just a miracle gun hero or three somewhere in the crowd with perfect aim, great judgement and who had the foresight to pack hollow point ammunition today because dog gone it! You never know! This is a fantasy scenario. You're living every day like you're going to be struck like lightning, and convinced that unlike everyone else, *you* are made of rubber.

It seems the further we get the more you resort to strawman fallacies. Nowhere did I claim that this particular scenario is likely to occur, nowhere did I claim that armed citizens are miracle warriors, that they had perfect aim or any of that. No one is, not even the highest-speed lowest-drag SWAT officer in history.

My position is that someone with the right tool, the right skills, a little knowledge and the will to act can save lives, happens every day. Sometimes the person in question is a cop, sometimes a soldier, a paramedic and sometimes just a regular person doing their best.

Believe it or not, and I'm guessing not, this exact scenario has actually happened a number of times. But oh-freaking-no, that doesn't count because of 'what if' this and 'what if' that. So far, neither of us has brought actual events into the argument besides the Tuscon shooting, yet you conveniently ignore that.

Furthermore, there's a subtle but important difference between living your life like something is bound to happen and living it prepared for something that might happen. Violent crime, multiple murders and other emergencies happen every day and when they do it pays to be prepared.

Besides, if something being extremely unlikely meant we shouldn't at all worry about it, why should we ban guns to try to prevent it? It's extremely unlikely! who cares?!

How so? In Arizona for example, you attend a general fire arm safety course, pay a fee, submit a finger print, 60 days later you get a permit if you're not a felon or insane. Yeah thats a hell of a filter. And since the permit really just allows you to zip up your jacket over said gun, its not exactly a factor in everyone else that could just have it out on their hip. Who have not gone had to go through this ardous legal gauntlet that supposedly filters out the twattery as effectively as 8 months of LE training.

And yet, CCW holders are five times less likely to commit violent crimes, and despite rising permit levels, none of the doomsday scenarios have come to pass. Your argument boils down to "Because it's not as much it counts for nothing."

Bullshit, it is exactly what you listed there, a number of things which, individually aren't much, but all together, plus the practical concerns is a hell of a lot more than nothing.

They had to wait 60 days instead of 3? Much different breed, yes. Definately. >.>

Because the printing, background checks, costs, statistics and philosophies are just made-up.
Is it really that hard to comprehend that when you go from a very general group definition to a much more specific one, one that entails a number of additional practical concerns and responsibilities to say nothing of applications, the type of people are going to change too?

The extensive system that kept it out of the hands of the Arizona shooter? Who was clearly bat shit insane for years before hand? Who armed himself by just walking into the store and buying it 3 days earlier?

No system is perfect, I've said as much already, you know, many many times. Which is exactly why we need to move forward with improving the system and not just sweeping it under the rug.
The primary fault here is a disconnect between firearms background checks and mental health databases. Something that numerous jurisdictions have done plenty to rectify and the rest need to get off their asses and do it. This is probably the single most important legislative step that would actually work towards preventing incidents like this, but it seems everyone is too busy jumping on the ban-wagon to think about pesky little things like real-beneficial results.

I wouldn've imagined that by now it would be common knowledge that opinion polls always allow for and often state the margin of error.

And yet they still admit that they're more a measurement of how much people are willing to express themselves than they are about sincerely held beliefs.

.......you...have no idea what critical thinking is do you?

"purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do."
Prove to me that problem solving doesn't qualify as judgment concerning what to do.

We're not talking a self defence situation.

Self Defense situations make up the grand majority of all defensive firearm uses and therefore outweigh any impact on mass killings. Self Defense situations are thus a reason not to disarm the public, which is the topic of debate here.

Even if the stars align and lightning were to strike near me, I would consider you just as dangerous as the shooter, frankly. It doesn't matter what your intentions are. Someone started shooting, and you started shooting back. Now there's cross fire. Hopefully everyone knows not to run between you, or behind you, or behind him. In their panicked desperate attempts to escape in the confusion with gunshots going off in two different directions.

Typical firefights last for a matter of seconds and involve the exchange of only a handful of rounds before one or both sides are incapacitated. The minimal amount of danger caused by the mere fact that shots are being fired for that amount of time pales in comparison to an extended execution spree. This is why cops bring guns with them to active shooter scenarios and ever since columbine many departments changed their doctrine from surround and secure to seek and engage.

You also discount entirely incidents in which intervention occurs at some point after the initial shots were fired, when any crowds have largely dispersed and a responder is more able to gain a valid angle of attack.

Given the choice I wouldn't want any guns near me at all. Especially guns held by people overconfident in their ability to use said gun to save the day.

No one claimed to be able to take the head off of a BG from 100 yards with a 9mm. At best this is an unfounded assumption.

You *seriously* can't see how irresponsible that is? Seriously? By your logic the Arizona shooter could have wandered around in the crowd with a gun and anyone who noticed should have just gone "Oh, hey, I bet he's here to protect us!" and not "Oh shit! He he has a gun! Run for it!" which might have actually saved some lives.

Every day thousands of armed civilians, off-duty law enforcement and undercover law enforcement walk among the general populace armed. And yet, only a fraction of a percent of people who carry weapons start shooting people, and most of them are breaking laws to do it anyway.

The fact of the matter is that a person with a gun is by that virtue no more likely to kill you than a person without one. Furthermore, even if concealed carry was illegal in that area, no one would've known so it's really a moot point anyway. You ban concealed carry and the only ones who're going to follow that rule are the ones on your side. Not exactly a winning strategy.

But really, seriously. That pic is a shark jump. ;p

Not really. It's the perfect example of how someone carrying a weapon responsibly is far less threatening than some douche waving a gun around with their finger on the trigger to make their point. The funny part is that it's the anti-gunners being irresponsible.

I see you're falling back on the classic "the internet doesn't matter" cop-out. I suppose that means the first amendment should be the next to go, because who needs free speech?

Note:
Fire Extinguisher = Tool to handle something dangerous, a fire, rarely used.
Defensive firearm = Tool to handle something dangerous, a violent attacker, rarely used.

Both of them cost money, both of them are for handling something before the 911 fellahs get there. I could also go into how both of them are heavy and made of metal, but firearms are actually pulling ahead there so fire extinguisher designers better get with the times or risk looking lazy by comparison

[crashhelmet]

I cannot even own the following, they are illegal:
a collapsible baton
a kubaton
a taser
rubber bullets
pepper spray
Mace

so nothing at all that is non lethal is even an option for self-defense, I'd rather have a non lethal option, but my state says it's too dangerous, but I can carry a firearm, and apparently that's not as dangerous.

It's because in all of the many translations of the 2nd Amendment, no one has lobbied for "Arms" to include these items.

So people find loop holes. Those are brass knuckles/rings, it's a "Belt Buckle." That's not a kubaton, it's a "Key Chain"

[crashhelmet]

I keep reading on and on about how legal Gun Owners are responsible and not the threat we have to worry about.

Then I see signs like This One
Tweets like This One

And my 2 favorite signs, This One and This One

[Gravekeeper]

I keep reading on and on about how legal Gun Owners are responsible and not the threat we have to worry about.

Rooster tits, remember. Rooster tits. There's not much point in this "discussion". Hell, the goal posts have already been moved. -.-

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Rooster tits, remember. Rooster tits. There's not much point in this "discussion". Hell, the goal posts have already been moved. -.-

So sorry the issue is a complicated one, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this "discussion." at all.

Maybe there'd be more of a point to debating this topic if fewer people didn't dismiss it as hopeless.

[crashhelmet]

So sorry the issue is a complicated one, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this "discussion." at all.

Maybe there'd be more of a point to debating this topic if fewer people didn't dismiss it as hopeless.

It's only complicated because too many people on both sides are too fearful and/or too stubborn to be reasonable.

[Gravekeeper]

So sorry the issue is a complicated one, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this "discussion." at all.

Maybe there'd be more of a point to debating this topic if fewer people didn't dismiss it as hopeless.

Dude, really, in all honesty, what point is there in debating? You're completely adamant in your position, you're moving the goal posts, using rhetoric and wavering into the personal now and then. That's not a debate, it's just a headache.

Do you seriously think anyone in this thread is going to change their mind on anything? Nope! So ya, rooster tits. ( I need a rooster tit emoticon ).

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Dude, really, in all honesty, what point is there in debating? You're completely adamant in your position, you're moving the goal posts, using rhetoric and wavering into the personal now and then. That's not a debate, it's just a headache.

Do you seriously think anyone in this thread is going to change their mind on anything? Nope! So ya, rooster tits. ( I need a rooster tit emoticon ).

I, personally, believe in the scientific method and apply it to as many of my opinions as I can, as best I can. I'd be perfectly willing to change my views on the impact of gun availability on violent crime rates were I to be given sufficient evidence in the form of qualified, peer-reviewed studies. I'd be happy to question my interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment were I to see a well argued decision from the Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret constitutional law. I would consider the threat of things like crossfire and over-penetration to be significant if, in reality, they had proven themselves to be anything other than minimal. I'd be happy to discuss the idea of CCWs as applied to active shooter scenarios specifically if it weren't for the fact that the anti-gunner's proposed solution drags the entirety of self-defense along with it. I'd entertain the idea that my arguments are comparatively tainted by personal bias, over-emotionalism, intense mistrust, and even paranoia if those weren't the very things that I see strewn throughout anti-gun arguments.

In short, there's plenty of reasons to continue to believe what I believe, and the only thing that will change that is a set of reasons that are better supported and altogether stronger. This has not yet come to pass.

As it stands, poverty has been shown to be the single greatest indicator of violent crime, armed or otherwise. The supreme court ruled in support of an individual right to bear arms. Despite searching high and low, I couldn't find a single instance in which shots over-penetrated intended targets and seriously injured bystanders. To support a ban on firearms, all of the implications must be addressed. If anyone's overly emotional and paranoid it's the pundits who, following every tragedy, can't seem to keep themselves from dancing in the blood before it even hits the ground.

This thread's been going on for a little while, and plenty of words have been exchanged with only the smallest section of any of this actually seeing daylight. It ain't over till the fat lady sings, and she hasn't yet made it to the theater much less the stage.

[Andara Bledin]

I'd be perfectly willing to change my views on the impact of gun availability on violent crime rates were I to be given sufficient evidence in the form of qualified, peer-reviewed studies.

Ditto.

So far, however, the vast majority of anti-gun sentiment is spoken from a position of fear, not one of knowledge.

As it stands, poverty has been shown to be the single greatest indicator of violent crime, armed or otherwise.

There's a study that some guy did of various refugee camps a while back.

Turns out, it's not poverty that can be found at the root of violence. Rather, it's the perceived disparity of wealth that is most likely to lead to violence.

If everybody in a camp were dirt poor, there would be little reason to be violent, because there is nothing to gain and no reason to be angry because everybody is in the same position.

If 80% of the people in a camp were poor, and 5% had most of the power, there was a lot more violence. Strangely, a good portion of that violence came from the 15% that were not poor, but not powerful.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

We really need a name for this effect, but here is how it basically works. People see a gun law passed, and a few months later reports that violence/crime/etc has dropped. OOOO gun law MUST be responsible.

Forget that said violence and crime had been dropping in that area for years before said gun law, or that an influx of jobs/income/ or something else might be responsible. It HAS to be the gun law. Right now I am going to call it the 'logical fallacy' effect. Just for my amusement. Could it have played a part..absolutely, but to assume it was a 'magic' pill is just ..

Criminals do not operate by the law..that is why they are called criminals. Passing a law affects criminals as much as eating a hotdog affects carrots growth. Its putting your finger in a dam that is ready to collapse.

Are you ready to give up your rights so that the government can come in to your house, search everything you have, and thus get rid of all the guns in America? If not, then a gun law is a joke, and only criminals would have guns. It's a bit too little, too late.

Edit : People love to blame things/others/etc. Maybe one day taking personal responsibility will be the normal. Chances are I will have been taking a dirt nap for hundreds if not thousands of years by then..but a guy can dream.. right?