[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:17 pm

How many people get struck by lightning, live to tell about it, and then go run around in a storm the next day because the odds of getting struck twice are ridiculously low? Statistics tells them they are safe, but I bet nobody faults them for staying under cover.

That's not how "statistics" works--they are just as likely to be struck as anyone else who runs out into the second storm. I'm not surprised that you blithely dismiss numbers and probability when you can't make even the smallest effort to understand them.

violence in the media · Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:26 pm

What exactly is a "gun free zone" anyway? Is that an actual legal designation, where I could face actual legal penalties for unlawfully bringing a firearm onto the premises? Or is it a fluffy NRA designation, where the worst that could happen is that the barista refuses to fill my coffee order or the manager asks me to leave? The point being, if a "gun free zone" is most often the latter, why not just tote your concealed weapon anyway and deal with those inconveniences when and if they arise? We're talking about your safety here, in a world full of violent madmen. Isn't the minor inconvenience of being kicked out of Target every once in a while a small price to pay in order to be armed when the dangerous starts to happen? It's not like you get patted down before heading into the supermarket, so I'd think the chance of weapon detection is typically low.

Are we arguing about defending yourself and your family in your own home, out in public, or both?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:28 pm

violence in the media wrote:What exactly is a "gun free zone" anyway? Is that an actual legal designation, where I could face actual legal penalties for unlawfully bringing a firearm onto the premises? Or is it a fluffy NRA designation, where the worst that could happen is that the barista refuses to fill my coffee order or the manager asks me to leave?

No don't you see, when a private business owner exercises his right not to serve a customer with a gun, that's part of the liberal government conspiracy to deprive them of their guns.

Like in Communist Somalia where big government is so huge that every single person in the country is a member of the police force, and guns are prohibited to non police members.

npc310 wrote:You show the source of your ignorance when you refuse to see someone else's perspective, and sympathize with their feelings.

You show your ignorance when you think that failing to agree with you when you are factually wrong counts as not seeing it from your perspective. We can all see it from your perspective, you were robbed once when no one was in the house by a criminal who didn't have a gun.

From that perspective, all your arguments about having a gun to protect yourself and your family are fucking retarded.

npc310 wrote:YOU are the coward, hiding in your closet praying the cops arrive in time to save you.

It is not cowardice to do the logically correct thing to do. Now this however, is particularly hilarious when used as insult against K, since he's explained to you already that he prevents robberies and muggings by getting involved.

npc310 wrote:I hope that never happens to you.

He has already had infinity times more robberies of the building he was in than you.

npc310 wrote:You would probably pray for my destruction (and my family's) just to validate your skewed perspective.

Um... 1) There would be no reason to pray, because that doesn't do anything. 2) There is no reason for us to care if you are destroyed or not. 3) Your family being murdered by a robber would be a point against our argument not in favor of it. Instead, we sit high and mighty in the knowledge that you will never even have the chance to foil an armed robbery with your crazy gun fetish.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:19 pm

npc310 wrote:70 people got shot last week in an act of indescribable madness. How many of them said, "My chances of being involved in an act of gun violence are ridiculously low, so I'm not going to protect myself."

A lot of them did even after the shooting started. Multiple witnesses to the event have said that when the initial shots were fired, they thought it was some sort of joke or show being put on by the cinema.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:06 pm

Kaelik wrote:
npc310 wrote:YOU are the coward, hiding in your closet praying the cops arrive in time to save you.
It is not cowardice to do the logically correct thing to do. Now this however, is particularly hilarious when used as insult against K, since he's explained to you already that he prevents robberies and muggings by getting involved.

In an ultimately ballsier way than just waving a gun around, I might add. Doesn't take much courage to wave a gun at someone. Sticking your head out a window and asking the would be burglar "Hey, what's up?" takes a lot.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:33 pm

violence in the media wrote:What exactly is a "gun free zone" anyway? Is that an actual legal designation, where I could face actual legal penalties for unlawfully bringing a firearm onto the premises?

I'm not sure what npc is talking about, but there _are_ areas where guns are barred, despite being otherwise legal in the area. A lot of museums and archives post a sign, which while fairly wordy, essentially boils down to 'No guns on the premises, we will fucking arrest you.' I've particularly seen it at archives/museums on military bases and national military parks (historic battlefields), because people have a tendency to want to get historic (or not so historic) weapons appraised.

Strangely, evil crazy people don't materialize out of the ether and try to shoot these places up.

npc310 wrote:70 people got shot last week in an act of indescribable madness. How many of them said, "My chances of being involved in an act of gun violence are ridiculously low, so I'm not going to protect myself."

Ass. No, they recognize several basic facts:
1- chances of being involved in an act of gun violence _are_ in fact ridiculously low.
2- carrying a gun actually raises the chance of being involved in gun violence, because by having one you automatically raise any act of violence to gun violence
3- there are ways of protecting yourself that don't involve waving a gun around like a moron. And they are _more effective_ at the goal in question (protection).

tenuki · Post by **tenuki** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:52 am

Surgo wrote:Police in European countries don't carry guns. It works out fine.

Alas, that is only true for (a majority of) British cops. Continental European police all carry guns. They don't shoot them very often though.

Just putting that out there.

Otherwise I'm totally with the crowd that prefers statistics over anecdotal evidence and confabulation.

But even on the level of anecdotes and conjecture the npc310/NRA line of thinking doesn't hold up too well. E.g., if I had been in the Aurora theater with a concealed handgun, I'd probably have shot the first person I saw with a gun in their hands, period. In all likelihood, the target would've been another wannabe protector of families.

Lots of weapons + lots of confusion = carnage.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:21 am

Given that you're not just allowed to draw on everyone who gets within super soaker range having a gun isn't actually all that decisive of an advantage anyway. Basically, they "work best" if you are, in fact, a crazy person who doesn't care about who you hurt or whether it's necessary.

Duke Flauros · Post by **Duke Flauros** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:39 am

tenuki wrote: Alas, that is only true for (a majority of) British cops. Continental European police all carry guns. They don't shoot them very often though.

British police, especially the London cops, are horribly violent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9vd-Gfdluw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLZVToHetAE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 998976.stm

Hell, the London cops are even more trigger-happy than LA's south central division.

http://libcom.org/news/protests-tottenh ... y-07082011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_ ... de_Menezes

Whipstitch wrote:Given that you're not just allowed to draw on everyone who gets within super soaker range having a gun isn't actually all that decisive of an advantage anyway. Basically, they "work best" if you are, in fact, a crazy person who doesn't care about who you hurt or whether it's necessary.

???

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:44 am

Whipstitch wrote:Basically, they "work best" if you are, in fact, a crazy person who doesn't care about who you hurt or whether it's necessary.

For instance, npc?

rampaging-poet · Post by **rampaging-poet** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:00 am

Duke Flauros wrote:
Whipstitch wrote:Given that you're not just allowed to draw on everyone who gets within super soaker range having a gun isn't actually all that decisive of an advantage anyway. Basically, they "work best" if you are, in fact, a crazy person who doesn't care about who you hurt or whether it's necessary.
???

You can't have your gun in your hands at all times without looking like a crazy shooter maniac. If you actually need your gun, it will take some time to retrieve it - time the mugger used to beat you over the head with a wrench. In most situations you might need a gun, the other person has the element of surprise. If you surprise the other guy, you need to either take a moment to verify he's actually a threat or shoot blindly and possibly kill an innocent person.

The big advantage of a gun is that the threat of firing it can keep people at a distance. If they're already close enough to enter melee, that advantage is lost. If they're at range and already have their gun out, they're likely to shoot you when you go for yours. If you shoot and miss, you may injure an innocent third party, an outcome that is much less likely when defending yourself with martial arts or melee weapons.

tenuki · Post by **tenuki** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:40 am

Duke Flauros wrote:
tenuki wrote: Alas, that is only true for (a majority of) British cops. Continental European police all carry guns. They don't shoot them very often though.
British police, especially the London cops, are horribly violent.

Yes. This doesn't change the fact that you won't find guns on the majority of British cops.

That said, my point was about European cops. Someone had stated they don't carry guns, which is simply not true - except for Britain, where they have special firearms units.

Duke Flauros wrote: Hell, the London cops are even more trigger-happy than LA's south central division.

Also true, but really, what I said was that _continental_ European police don't shoot their guns very often in general. Last time I checked, Britain wasn't part of continental Europe.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:42 pm

rampaging-poet wrote: You can't have your gun in your hands at all times without looking like a crazy shooter maniac. If you actually need your gun, it will take some time to retrieve it - time the mugger used to beat you over the head with a wrench. In most situations you might need a gun, the other person has the element of surprise. If you surprise the other guy, you need to either take a moment to verify he's actually a threat or shoot blindly and possibly kill an innocent person.

Exactly. Let's say it's raining out and you're waiting at the bus stop rain shelter and some young men approach. Do you go stand out in the rain, draw your weapon or assume that these guys just want to wait for the bus without getting too wet? Because they might rob you, and if you wait until you're within spitting distance then suddenly a knife gets pretty decent odds against a gun. And for many, many people life is pretty much one long string of such encounters. I get that some people live in the ass end of nowhere and aren't inconvenienced by the stranger danger approach to every day life but for the rest of us it's necessary to suss out what an acceptable risk looks like.

The Vigilante · Post by **The Vigilante** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:45 pm

Duke Flauros wrote:
British police, especially the London cops, are horribly violent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... dents.html
http://www.theday.com/article/20111217/ ... 1070/NWS04
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 998976.stm

Hell, the London cops are even more trigger-happy than LA's south central division.

http://libcom.org/news/protests-tottenh ... y-07082011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_ ... de_Menezes
http://newlondon.patch.com/articles/new ... -a-suspect

Boy do you ever suck. You didn't even read your own articles. The first one is from London, Ontario (Canada), while the second is from New London, CT.

Duke Flauros · Post by **Duke Flauros** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:32 pm

tenuki wrote: Yes. This doesn't change the fact that you won't find guns on the majority of British cops.

That said, my point was about European cops. Someone had stated they don't carry guns, which is simply not true - except for Britain, where they have special firearms units.

Also true, but really, what I said was that _continental_ European police don't shoot their guns very often in general. Last time I checked, Britain wasn't part of continental Europe.

True. However, the Bradey Campaign and others have said that stronger gun laws= less violence, and some people here seemed to be on the same track.

Whipstitch wrote: Exactly. Let's say it's raining out and you're waiting at the bus stop rain shelter and some young men approach. Do you go stand out in the rain, draw your weapon or assume that these guys just want to wait for the bus without getting too wet? Because they might rob you, and if you wait until you're within spitting distance then suddenly a knife gets pretty decent odds against a gun. And for many, many people life is pretty much one long string of such encounters. I get that some people live in the ass end of nowhere and aren't inconvenienced by the stranger danger approach to every day life but for the rest of us it's necessary to suss out what an acceptable risk looks like.

You are correct here. However at close but not quite point blank range (say, 10 ft) having a gun helps a lot if you can pull it out fast enough.

The Vigilante wrote: Boy do you ever suck.

Don't get your panties in a twist, dearie.

The Vigilante · Post by **The Vigilante** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:06 pm

Duke Flauros wrote:
The Vigilante wrote: Boy do you ever suck.
Don't get your panties in a twist, dearie.

You're still an idiot who cares more about his opinion than actual facts. You just googled "london cops violence" or something similar and copy-pasted the links without even reading the first line of any of the articles you posted, hoping everyone would do the same and not realise what a dumb little shit you are. You suck so much, you gotta have cocks delivered to your house by the bushel.

EDIT : first for the quote tags, second for spelling mistake.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:15 pm

Duke Flauros, being caught making non sequitur citations is pretty bad for your standing; but when your response to being called out on it is both dismissive and insulting without substance, engagement, or embarrassment? That is you setting your entire credibility on fire. That tells us you didn't make an honest mistake, you're just an incredibly lazy liar.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:18 pm

Duke Flauros wrote: True. However, the Bradey Campaign and others have said that stronger gun laws= less violence, and some people here seemed to be on the same track.

I'm sure there's some idiot out there ready and willing to serve as a strawman for that line of reasoning but until someone volunteers I don't think it's worth discussing. From what I've seen here on this thread gun control has been treated like what it is: a safety issue rather than a crime reduction issue. Because while it's sad and offensive when some dude takes a beating during a carjacking it's still preferable to being repeatedly shot during a carjacking or having Joe Horn go next door and kill a couple burglars.

tenuki · Post by **tenuki** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:23 pm

Duke Flauros wrote:
The Vigilante wrote: Boy do you ever suck.
Don't get your panties in a twist, dearie.

You could at least admit that conflating the three Londons was a major lapse. If you don't, people might assume that you find nothing exceptionable about misrepresenting your sources and treat your future contributions accordingly.

Oh, wait. You attributed my quote to Whipstitch. I sense a pattern there.

As for whether gun laws reduce gun violence, it's kinda hard to arrive at a conclusion about that looking just at US data. The US is saturated gun-wise, and a change in the legislation doesn't make the extant ordnance go away.

Comparing the US with Canada (which has a comparable ratio of firearms per capita, but a far lower rate of gun violence) suggests that the presence of guns alone isn't enough to cause all the mayhem.

This here article from Scientific American (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pri ... kers-wild/) connects violence in general to social inequality. Considering how the US is at the level of your average third-world dictatorship when it comes to fairness of income distribution, I'm inclined to find this explanation quite plausible.

Duke Flauros · Post by **Duke Flauros** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:18 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Duke Flauros, being caught making non sequitur citations is pretty bad for your standing; but when your response to being called out on it is both dismissive and insulting without substance, engagement, or embarrassment? That is you setting your entire credibility on fire. That tells us you didn't make an honest mistake, you're just an incredibly lazy liar.

Err, no. If you notice, I did fix the links and the quote tag. BTW, yelling accusations at someone isn't a great way to get your point across.

Whipstitch wrote: I'm sure there's some idiot out there ready and willing to serve as a strawman for that line of reasoning but until someone volunteers I don't think it's worth discussing. From what I've seen here on this thread gun control has been treated like what it is: a safety issue rather than a crime reduction issue. Because while it's sad and offensive when some dude takes a beating during a carjacking it's still preferable to being repeatedly shot during a carjacking or having Joe Horn go next door and kill a couple burglars.

I'll agree with you here. But are more restrictive gun laws really going to reduce gun crime? Mexico has very restrictive gun laws, and they have horrible gun crime problems.

tenuki wrote: You could at least admit that conflating the three Londons was a major lapse. If you don't, people might assume that you find nothing exceptionable about misrepresenting your sources and treat your future contributions accordingly.

Oh no, someone made a series of minor factual errors on the internet and got a quote tag wrong! The world is coming to an end!

tenuki wrote: Oh, wait. You attributed my quote to Whipstitch. I sense a pattern there.

I usually respond to a post, and then copy+paste other posts and then add quote tags. I screw up quote tags pretty frequently.

tenuki wrote: As for whether gun laws reduce gun violence, it's kinda hard to arrive at a conclusion about that looking just at US data. The US is saturated gun-wise, and a change in the legislation doesn't make the extant ordnance go away.

Comparing the US with Canada (which has a comparable ratio of firearms per capita, but a far lower rate of gun violence) suggests that the presence of guns alone isn't enough to cause all the mayhem.

This here article from Scientific American (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pri ... kers-wild/) connects violence in general to social inequality. Considering how the US is at the level of your average third-world dictatorship when it comes to fairness of income distribution, I'm inclined to find this explanation quite plausible.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ths/69354/

Interestingly enough, according to this article, stress, mental illness, and drug use aren't as important as income and college education.

The Vigilante · Post by **The Vigilante** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:26 pm

Duke Flauros wrote:
tenuki wrote: You could at least admit that conflating the three Londons was a major lapse. If you don't, people might assume that you find nothing exceptionable about misrepresenting your sources and treat your future contributions accordingly.
Oh no, someone made a series of minor factual errors on the internet and got a quote tag wrong! The world is coming to an end!

It actually shows that you didn't even bother to read you articles, as you would have quickly understood that they weren't from the UK if you had read even the first paragraph. It's not a big mistake, but it clearly shows that you are basing your "reflexion" (if you can call it that) on your present opinion and then you work your way backwards trying to find articles that you feel support your point. And that's called intellectual dishonesty.

Duke Flauros wrote:
tenuki wrote: As for whether gun laws reduce gun violence, it's kinda hard to arrive at a conclusion about that looking just at US data. The US is saturated gun-wise, and a change in the legislation doesn't make the extant ordnance go away.

Comparing the US with Canada (which has a comparable ratio of firearms per capita, but a far lower rate of gun violence) suggests that the presence of guns alone isn't enough to cause all the mayhem.

This here article from Scientific American (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pri ... kers-wild/) connects violence in general to social inequality. Considering how the US is at the level of your average third-world dictatorship when it comes to fairness of income distribution, I'm inclined to find this explanation quite plausible.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ths/69354/

Interestingly enough, according to this article, stress, mental illness, and drug use aren't as important as income and college education.

You do realize that you are actually agreeing with him, right ?

Duke Flauros · Post by **Duke Flauros** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:19 pm

The Vigilante wrote: It actually shows that you didn't even bother to read you articles, as you would have quickly understood that they weren't from the UK if you had read even the first paragraph. It's not a big mistake, but it clearly shows that you are basing your "reflexion" (if you can call it that) on your present opinion and then you work your way backwards trying to find articles that you feel support your point.

When you are trying to make a point in a debate, you are going to look for data that supports that point. Are you seriously arguing that when I’m making a debate point, I should go out and find evidence that contradicts the point I’m trying to make?
BTW, it’s spelled “reflexes”.

The Vigilante wrote: And that's called intellectual dishonesty.

Excusez Moi?
“Boy do you ever suck.””You're still an idiot who cares more about his opinion than actual facts.””what a dumb little shit you are.””You suck so much, you gotta have cocks delivered to your house by the bushel.”

And from earlier threads:

“Are you really having trouble following this conversation? Are those fanboy glasses giving you reading troubles ?””That's what a racist would say.””What the fuck are you smoking?””I see you are legally retarded.””You, on the other hand, are a stupid motherfucker. See what I did there ? I didn't "imply" you were a stupid motherfucker, I said it outright. Does Mr Shit-for-Brains understand the difference?”

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/pe ... ttack.html
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

The Vigilante wrote: You do realize that you are actually agreeing with him, right ?

Yes.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:30 pm

That's not how intellectual dishonesty works.

Insulting people is not intellectual dishonesty, especially not when they are accurate.

Citing sources when they don't actually say that, and arguing in based on a desire for X to be the answer regardless of reality are.

Duke Flauros · Post by **Duke Flauros** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:47 pm

Kaelik wrote:That's not how intellectual dishonesty works.

Insulting people is not intellectual dishonesty, especially not when they are accurate.

Releasing a torrent of Ad Hominem arguments "you are wrong because you are an x" and then accusing the other guy of intellectual dishonesty is a tad hypocritical.

Esp. since in previous arguments he assumed things about me via inductive reasoning: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=276868#276868 and then proceeded to, based on those assumptions, first release a torrent of ad hominem arguements and then accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

Kaelik wrote:Citing sources when they don't actually say that,

Dishonesty implies an intentional desire not to tell the truth. This is different from error.

Kaelik wrote:and arguing in based on a desire for X to be the answer regardless of reality are.

I did fix the links. In any case, I was actually agreeing for the most part with the posters I was talking with.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:07 am

That's not how ad hominem works.

He didn't say "You are wrong because you are an X." He said, "You are an X."

You are fucking dumb. That's not why your argument is wrong. Now, your argument is wrong. But that's not way.

So yes, not intellectual dishonesty.