Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Jun 21 08:06:03 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / Nim / gun control
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 08:11:28
"showing that there is another form of existence and social organization than the one in the UK and Sweden."

No shit.

"I am ultimately explaining, what I often find myself explaining to Europeans, that the USA isn't a worse place than Europe, it is different."

Why thank you for your beneficent enlightenment. Truly, I was ignorant of American society until you bestowed this upon me.

However, I disagree - the impact guns have on US society is not simply different, it is objectively worse; whether that is the impact in terms of mass shootings, the increased lethality of contact with the police, or the simple need that you have children drilled in active shooter events from a very young age.

Even if you could attribute a reduction in violent assaults compared to the UK entirely to the presence of guns at the full rate suggested by your figures, I would say that is not an acceptable trade off I would want for the society I lived in.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 08:15:56
As for self-defense - if your wife has a gun for self defense, then suddenly you need a gun for self defense. Then the likelihood of a gun is a prevalent aspect to any violence greatly eroding the self-defense potential a gun offers.

Self-defense is a right, *effective means* of defense is an arbitrary and moving target.

F.ex. a taser offers a great deal of capacity for self defense that can equalize against physical strength.

Seems you are working backwards from a conclusion, again.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 08:19:13
"the idea that the main driver is gun ownership."

I certainly think it matters, but it matters over the course of _decades_ and _centuries_, not policy drafted today. I mean I could have taken Switzerland as an example, but America is just more fun, isn't it?

"Truly, I was ignorant of American society until you bestowed this upon me."

You may joke, but I think you are.

As for the technical discussion, I have put some effort into this issue, but it is all back of the envelop kind of stuff. Good enough for UP. My prediction when I went about was to find out that American were equally violent as their genetic and cultural ancestors. You can believe whatever you want about confirmation bias, but that is the truth. Turns out, I was wrong, but it would be too early to say I have definitive evidence for anything.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 08:26:34
"Then the likelihood of a gun is a prevalent aspect to any violence greatly eroding the self-defense potential a gun offers."

You mean the playing field becomes equalized? Strange way of describing equality. The erosion goes 1 way when we equalize this.

"of defense is an arbitrary and moving target."

It is pretty absolutist, no one has invented a better tool for personal self-defense in several 100 years, the target is thus moving so slowly that it is standing still in the lifetime of a person.

"taser offers a great deal of capacity for self defense that can equalize against physical strength."

Oh dear. No, just no. I can show you a never ending series of video clips where it has ZERO effect. You are essentially in grappling distance with a taser, and the ones that shoot out spikes are very unreliable. You have 1 attempt and if it misses, it's GG.

Seems you have a very rosy picture of violence and what is and isn't effective.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 08:31:09
Nim:

"but it matters over the course of _decades_ and _centuries"

I.e. it is cultural rather than causally related - given that gun technology and ownership has fluctuated dramatically over that period. And not much use for a conversation about gun control itself per se.

"You may joke, but I think you are."

Yes, but you think a lot of wrong and stupid things for which you have no evidence - in any case I started off by clearly stating this is contextual, so you have no basis for your patronizing drivel as we actually agree on this point.

You've literally created an entirely unnecessary argument out of nothing more than your own imagination of a position I don't hold. I'm not joking so much as mocking you.

"Good enough for UP."

Not really - inconclusive is inconclusive - wherever you post it; and confirmation bias doesn't require intent. The way you are going about this is very much likely to lead to you overlooking alternative explanations.

Hypothesis choice! It matters. One of the biggest source of bias.

Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 08:49:13
Nim:

"You mean the playing field becomes equalized? Strange way of describing equality. The erosion goes 1 way when we equalize this."

A gun allows me to defend myself against someone who is more powerful and unarmed.

If my attacker is armed, I am at a disadvantage (attacker will always have the drop on me, that is the nature of crime) - and the stakes are raised - I am more likely to suffer a serious injury or death.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 08:55:14
Nim:

"Oh dear. No, just no. I can show you a never ending series of video clips where it has ZERO effect."

You are operating on the wrong basis of comparison - if the individual has to fire a shot from a gun to defend themselves, rather than relying on deterrence factor - the statistical odds are not good that this confrontation will end well for the defender.

You can also find many many examples of people with a handgun missing targets; and many examples of individuals being killed with their own guns by assailants.

Your basis of argument was around deterrent effect.

I doubt that many criminals would not be deterred by a drawn tazer if they would have been deterred by a gun.

So we are playing in the margins I suspect.
Habebe
Member
Wed Apr 28 09:16:35
"A gun allows me to defend myself against someone who is more powerful and unarmed.

If my attacker is armed, I am at a disadvantage (attacker will always have the drop on me, that is the nature of crime) - and the stakes are raised - I am more likely to suffer a serious injury or death."

If the attacker is armed as well, you have roughly equal advantage.Individual cases may vary.

If we take the example of home invasion, the homeowner with a gun clearly has the advantage as you know the lay out of your home.

A car jacking, less so.

"You are operating on the wrong basis of comparison - if the individual has to fire a shot from a gun to defend themselves"

You clearly do not need to shoot the gun to defend yourself with it.

Look at the police for example which we have millions of hours of actual footage for.Usually just holding a gun on someone is enough for them to give up.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 09:55:41
"I.e. it is cultural rather than causally related"

Right, and culture would be something that we can change...? I actually explicitly said, I am not proposing the UK change their gun laws tomorrow. I acknowledge the fact that these kinds of change is a long journey. Given the facts, I am not against legalizing gun ownership in a controlled manner, I am for it.

"so you have no basis for your patronizing drivel"

It comes naturally when the person I talk to keeps talking to me, as if I am idiot and they themselves are the foremost authority on the subject. Tiresome.

"I'm not joking so much as mocking you."

Joking/mocking whatever word you want to use, you were not being serious, was the point. I was mocking your biased understanding of how the world works.

"Hypothesis choice! It matters. One of the biggest source of bias."

We all suffer from that bias and I acknowledge this on a larger scale that you seem to have grasped from all my ramblings. This knowledge is why I am a free speech advocate, protective of marginal voices and against gate keeping (peer review is one example). It is because I know we are biased that I am against public service media. etc. etc. etc. That is the whole point behind a free "market place of ideas" to play these biases against each other.

Which makes your "you are biased" totally uninteresting, because you are also biased.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 10:19:08
“If my attacker is armed, I am at a disadvantage (attacker will always have the drop on me, that is the nature of crime) - and the stakes are raised - I am more likely to suffer a serious injury or death.”

Yes attackers always have the drop on you. That is where that sentence should have ended. Hypotheticals are fun, but hypothetically, there are a lot of hypothetical situations where having a gun will save you from death or injury.

“You can also find many many examples of people with a handgun missing targets; and many examples of individuals being killed with their own guns by assailants.”

See above for broadening your imagination for anecdotes.

“Your basis of argument was around deterrent effect.”

No, it is the right to have effective tools (guns) for self-defense. One effect that guns have is deterrence.

“I doubt that many criminals would not be deterred by a drawn tazer if they would have been deterred by a gun.”

Jesus lord, protector of all that is good an holy... Let me guess, you probably also think kicking a man in the groin is a game stopping move (psst it isn’t). And this isn’t even something that requires special training, most people understand guns are more dangerous than tasers. Why do you say these stupid things?

If you were going to attack someone, would you rather they have a taser or a gun? What do you think your chance for a successful attack would be given either choice? This is a Darwin award worthy thing to say seb, your understanding of violence is completely broken. And now everything you have said is making sense.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 10:23:40
I think the Russians will be as deterred by bows and arrows as they are by nuclear submarines
-Seb

Sam Adams
Member
Wed Apr 28 10:54:57
"or the simple need that you have children drilled in active shooter events from a very young age."

Says the guy that imports muslim terrorists to shoot stab run over and blow up european kids.

Lol hypocritical dunce.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 10:58:23
Nim:

"Right, and culture would be something that we can change"

As you say, over decades and centuries. The reality is you can only change culture by changing policy and law - and those policies and laws land in the culture and social context as they are now.

We are back where we started. There's a context, and every is the appropriate policy change to make varies.

Banning handguns tomorrow in the US wouldn't have the same outcomes as banning handguns in the UK in 1997 or 1994 or whenever it was.

This is one of the reasons a simple comparison of assault rates between the US and UK is unlikely to tell us meaningfully what the outcome of applying the UK policy to the UK now (or vice versa).

Instead, the best indicator is to look at impacts of changes in gun laws in single countries. The signal is clearer and it is it is less likely uncontrolled factors account for diffrences.

"Which makes your "you are biased" totally uninteresting, because you are also biased."

You are conflating two sources of bias.

Your methods aren't sound - at least as you are practicing them here.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Apr 28 11:55:31
"the simple need that you have children drilled in active shooter events from a very young age."

You really don't though.

Most schools have electronic security doors. Teachers know lockdown procedures. Many schools have armed resource officers - maybe they'll cower in a stairwell, but they're there.

For a statistical rarity.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 12:02:39
Seb
”The reality is you can only change culture by changing policy and law - and those policies and laws land in the culture and social context as they are now.”

It isn’t the only way... In fact in real life, change in cultural attitudes regularly precedes change in legislation. We are not trapped by context in this way, people lobby and actively work to change cultural attitudes every day. When politicians try to round that corner, there is often a backlash.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 12:10:10
Nim:

"Hypotheticals are fun, but hypothetically, there are a lot of hypothetical situations where having a gun will save you from death or injury."

Indeed, but your argument is from principle, based on a hypothetical argument that a gun could be helpful, and that to deprive people of access to guns effectively deprives them of the means of self-defence.

If hypotheticals are uninteresting, we are back to the basis of looking at the impact gun ownership has generally, rather than trying to create an erstatz fundamental right to a gun via stretching the right to self defense to breaking point.

I mean, if we took this approach to other rights we can find all sorts of object and things people have a right to.

"One effect that guns have is deterrence."

"Let me guess, you probably also think kicking a man in the groin is a game stopping move"

Being tased is only the equivalent of being kicked in the groin... hmm interesting.

"most people understand guns are more dangerous than tasers"

No shit. You don't say. I am shocked. Clearly, I would only have suggested tazers as an alternative that offers a great deal of capacity for self defense; if I actually believed they *were* as dangerous and offered *the same* capacity for self-defense. Sure, the words I wrote have the opposite sense, suggesting it is less lethal but offers a significant self defense capacity (and thus maybe a better trade off)...

"If you were going to attack someone, would you rather they have a taser or a gun?"

If they had either, I probably wouldn't attack them (see again, not thinking this through properly because you are starting from a conclusion and working backwards). I'd find someone who isn't armed.

If I *was* determined to attack them, I would probably be as likely to attack them if they had a tazer or a gun. You'd have to be pretty confident that they were not going to hit you with the tazer, and that if they did, they were going to show restraint.

"your understanding of violence is completely broken"
I don't think so. For a start there is plenty of evidence that simple things like displaying situational awareness deters street crime like robbery and mugging.

This tends to suggest the critical point is not considering the relative danger of the weapon and likelihood to win a conflict, but the likelihood of the victim acquiescing without a fight. For many classes of violent crime, the criminal is looking for someone they guess will not fight back, not someone they think will fight back, but lose.

So the question is not "is a tazer more or less likely to incapacitate someone than a gun", but "as an attacker, am I likely to attack someone with a tazer" - in many violent crime scenarios, the answer is "no, I'll find an easier mark".

Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 12:13:49
Forwyn:

"You really don't though."

I know three close friends with kids in the US currently in school. They all have active shooter drills. I find it unlikely this is a rarity.

Various news coverage of the phenomenon suggests it isn't rare either.

http://www...n-shooter-drills-in-us-schools

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47711020

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/active-shooter-drills-are-meant-prepare-students-research-finds-severe-n1239103

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/03/us/school-shooting-lockdown-drills/

http://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/unannounced-active-shooter-drills-scaring-students-without

http://everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-active-shooter-drills-in-schools/
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Apr 28 13:23:14
Active shooter drills are a good way for left wing teachers to drive their anti-gun messaging.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Apr 28 16:04:28
School shooting deaths are a statistical rarity, not drills.

It is safer to be a student in 2021 than it was in 1991. A student is more likely to die on the way to school than at school.

That schools spend billions practicing unnecessary drills is an indictment of school bureaucrats.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 16:19:36
Forwyn:

Statistical rarity compared to what though?

Car accidents are common. Saying you are more likely to die on the way to an American schools than in it is about as reassuring as a hot tub salesman saying you are more likely to burn to death in the kitchen than one of his hot tubs. It's to be expected, and a cause for concern that his baseline for accidental incineration is a room full of appliances designed to burn thing.

I don't think Americans appreciate how deeply odd and unacceptable the whole concept of school shootings are to the rest of the world.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Apr 28 20:43:23
"Statistical rarity compared to what though?"

Compared to virtually any other cause of death for children.

Thirty-five people died in 2018 school shootings, twenty-seven of those in two high-profile incidents in Florida and Texas.

Eight people died in 2019 school shootings.

Three people died in 2020 school shootings.

Population: 328.2 million (2019)

"I don't think Americans appreciate how deeply odd and unacceptable the whole concept of school shootings are to the rest of the world."

Yes, we're well aware just how fucking obsessed you are with absolutely every facet of domestic policy, and how we fail to emulate you in every way.
habebe
Member
Wed Apr 28 21:49:50
So, some here will think this is racist, but if your goal is to reduce murder...lets think about this.

1. Lets say you succeed and ban guns successfully , the bulk of the current guns are reduced to say UK levels.

What happens? a significant share of those crimes will still occur with other weapons.

2. Roughly a 6% chunk of the US population commit over 50% of all murders.

wouldn't it make more sense to just ban black people id your true* goal is to reduce murders?
Seb
Member
Thu Apr 29 02:11:23
Forwyn:

"Compared to virtually any other cause of death for children"

I don't think you are getting this.

Habebe:
"What happens? a significant share of those crimes will still occur with other weapons."

*Yaaaaawn*

I already said you can't just ban guns in the US because the cotext is different - notably prevalence of guns. Boring.

Also I don't think it's as simple to say the crimes will happen with other weapons, and even if they do that are likely to be less lethal and police interactions will be less lethal - but only if gun prevalence is substantially reduced.

2. Any excuse for a little bit of race hatred eh?
Seb
Member
Thu Apr 29 02:17:08
When you say 6%, do you mean is 6% share characteristics you've arbitrarily chosen to perform a correlation exercise on.

For someone who is an actual criminal, you are sure keen to criminalise a bunch of people who aren't by association.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Apr 29 05:29:10
"If I *was* determined to attack them, I would probably be as likely to attack them if they had a tazer or a gun."

The only point being hammered home here, is that people who are over-educated, construct bizarre ideas of how the world works. They think defending the absurd, is a mark intelligence.

Makes me wonder, how their ancestors survived? They survived because talk is cheap. Saying absurd shit in an argument on a forum vs the reality of facing the ultimate ruin starring at a gun vs a taser.

I just can't take you seriously.
Seb
Member
Thu Apr 29 05:54:22
Nim:

I find it hilarious how you set yourself up as an authority with absolutely no basis, and then try to argue from authority. It is an unpersuasive approach.

A lot of violent crime is opportunistic (https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/opportunity_makes_the_thief.pdf) particularly say, robbery.

It does not start with a determination to attack a specific individual at all costs, and then work out to how best attack that individual, and where it does there is no particular reason to think that the person weighs up carefully which type of weapon the individual who they intend to attack is.


If we want to talk about dwarwinian pressures, lets look at how predators attack herds. They do not alight randomly by chance on an individual and then assess whether they are, in the end, likely to win. They target the individual for which success likelihood is maximized for minimum effort. The slowest, the weakest, the easiest to cut away. And if that opportunity does not present, the hunt may be abandoned.

It does not matter if a gun is a more infallible way of stopping someone than a tazer. It matters only if the individual attacking thinks it is now too risky to be worth it.
Habebe
Member
Thu Apr 29 06:17:23
Seb, "When you say 6%, do you mean is 6% share characteristics you've arbitrarily chosen to perform a correlation exercise on."

Its how the DOJ and the FBI record statistics. They do not break down murderers by height, thus it isn't arbitrary.


http://ucr...nded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

I don't hate black people. Is it from a place od hatred that I say most ritualistic murderers are white?If you want to reduce them, get rid of white people.

"

Also I don't think it's as simple to say the crimes will happen with other weapons, and even if they do that are likely to be less lethal and police interactions will be less lethal - but only if gun prevalence is substantially reduced."

I think we can agree, that when guns are taken out of a society, generally other weapons being used in murder occurs.It may reduce the total number a bit, the reason being simple, guns make it easier to kill people, just as blades make it easier than a rock.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Apr 29 07:01:53
Seb
"set yourself up as an authority"

Wrong angle, you reveal darwin award worthy incompetence.

"They target the individual for which success likelihood is maximized for minimum effort."

Weak human targets, unlike the weak individuals predators single out, can pull out a weapon, that complete changes the playing field. We can modify our chances of survival significantly, unlike prey. Surprise, I am strapped! Would be robbery/rapist changes his mind, decides to live and rape another day. If he isn't immediately shot. Does deer have this option?

"It does not matter if a gun is a more infallible way of stopping someone than a tazer."

You really are just going to keep stupid shit like this. The strawman is that human beings (who have a concept of death and ruin) have as crude a software for risk analysis, as wolves. So it won't matter what strength the "weak" target can pull out. I decided I am gonna rape you, taser or gun or hand grenade, I don't care! i.e The fact on the ground never change, so we can pursue the same strategy.

Ultimately in such cases where the criminal is this desperate and stupid, the gun is still going to neutralize him quicker and more reliably than a taser.

"It matters only if the individual attacking thinks it is now too risky to be worth it."

I asked you if you thought it mattered, you said this knowledge/choice wouldn't erode your determination. Yet you identity guns as more lethal you say, but despite that, it doesn't matter for you. Well, the average criminal is smarter than you and bail out on their determined objectives regularly to avoid ruin, as facts emerge and the situation changes. You know, like practically every other human being engaging in almost any of activities.

This is fucking retarded and you are being dishonest. If you can attack someone with a taser or a gun (I gave you 2 choices), what would you choose? You failed this very simple survival question, because to acknowledge this, no matter how little, undermines this hill you have decided to die on.
jergul
large member
Thu Apr 29 10:51:50
"We can modify our chances of survival significantly, unlike prey."

Most prey can.

Birds take off. Rabbits duck into barrows. Antelope gain speed, halibut hug the ocean floor and let the rockhoppers roll over it. Tusk (Brosme) fish are even smarter. They hear the singing vibration of the trawl wires and simply move out of the way long before the trawlnet reaches them.
Seb
Member
Thu Apr 29 11:48:48
Nim:

"Weak human targets, unlike the weak individuals predators single out, can pull out a weapon,"

OFFS - sometimes you are pathologically dense - my point is when they pull out a weapon, even if it is "only" a tazer, most opportunistic criminals will back off because it still represents to *them* an unacceptable level of risk/reward payoff.

They do not, by and large, think "this is less lethal than a gun and so an acceptable level of risk for me to take, given the reward".

"I decided I am gonna rape you, taser or gun or hand grenade, I don't care!"

The flies in the face of the fact the well known understanding that most crime is opportunistic.

Your model is wrong.

Seb
Member
Thu Apr 29 11:51:36
Nim:

"If you can attack someone with a taser or a gun (I gave you 2 choices), what would you choose?"

I answered: I will attack neither as the level of risk is unacceptable.

If you meant to pose the question as "You MUST attack someone, these are the two options":
a. that is a different question.
b. that doesn't accurately model the reality of opportunistic crime.

Please do not confuse your lack of understanding of crime and inability to formulate your questions with any deficiency on my part.
Seb
Member
Thu Apr 29 11:59:32
Nim:

It is possible you are misreading this paragraph:

"If I *was* determined to attack them, I would probably be as likely to attack them if they had a tazer or a gun. You'd have to be pretty confident that they were not going to hit you with the tazer, and that if they did, they were going to show restraint."

This is my attempt to answer your question in a somewhat realistic way - my first answer points out that I am not constrained to attack only people with tazers or guns - I can chose not to attack and wait for someone unarmed.

This answer addresses the idea that - for whatever reason - I am determined to attack a specific individual. That is to say, I do not have the option of not attacking this specific individual: I want to do that individual harm.

Under *that* circumstance, I cannot imagine a scenario where I would see them with a Tazer and proceed, but if I saw them with a gun, would not proceed.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 30 08:45:20
Jergul
tsk... The players in the wild enter the game with whatever abilities their genetics has given them. Beyond those physical abilities and instinctive behavior, they have no other weapons, tools or behavioral patterns to pull out. Humans have options, we have force multipliers and odds equalizers, animals don't. The natural arms race is really slow. Some animals are better at learning stuff and teaching it to their offspring, but none of them have to my knowledge pulled out a shotgun or even a knife. Sebs example just does not map very well to the reality of human life.

Seb
And I already explained it, even with a highly determined criminal, a gun is far more effective than a taser. There is literally no other answer to this, guns are a more effective deterrent and self-defense tool. All of these measures are about raising the stakes for the would-be assailant. Yes, if a highly motivated individual wanted to kill you, they can do this in so many ways, rendering your pistol practically useless. But that goes for any kind of home security system or items, like a lock. A motivated thief will get through, the objective is to make it difficult, a lock will keep out the low life criminals, a good lock will keep away a newbie criminals, a security system will keep out the… etc. and so on. The fact is that there are guns, they exist and are the most effective (not tasers, not steak knives, not baseball bats), easy to use tool for projecting violence that civilians reasonably can own and operate. The objective is to have an equal playing field. And right now, only criminals have them, not just a silly, by definition, but the thugs in your society are the ones with the guns.
This asymmetry does not exist on a legal level with regards to any other security or safety device, everyone can own alarms, locks and security doors, not just criminals. And it is rooted in some strange ideas about violence (what it is and how prevalent it is) and the hijacking of our faculties by the most extreme outcomes.

“If I *was* determined to attack them, I would probably be as likely to attack them if they had a tazer or a gun.”

No. You are talking about this as if this “determination” is not fluid. The fact remains, most people know a gun is more dangerous than a taser, and far more people would change their mind seeing a gun, than a taser. Those that remain undeterred by a gun, will die at a higher rate, thus reducing the frequency of their “determination” in the gene pool. Pretty straightforward, which is why I know what I am saying is a fact. People with shitty risk assessment and too much determination, DIE.

Either you get that or your don’t, it isn't something that needs to be explained.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 30 09:17:43
It is fascinating really. You correctly assume a taser will scare away a number of would-be assailants (vs no taser), but apparently in this fantasy world, a gun isn’t an escalation above a taser, that would scare away, an even higher number. It is such a silly hill to die on, because the gist of your argument is, that owning the gun or the prevelance of guns, brings with them additional risk, like accidents and ending up in the wrong hands. Yet, you have staked this hill where guns and taser are equivivalent.

You have arbitrarily drawn a line that a taser is good enough, because you, I dare say, have no intimate understanding of physical violence. The problem is I can’t condense and convey years of grappling and getting mauled by physically unimposing and lighter guys who, in absolute terms where weaker than me. The real eye opener however, is that I can and have, without breaking a sweat done this to women, who are technically superior to me. Inequality much?
Seb
Member
Fri Apr 30 11:43:14
Nim:
What your argument boils down to is that *any* marginal utility an item has for self defense is justified *in principle*.

A highly determined aggressor will not be deterred by a hand gun, so I should be able to have an assault rifle. What about land mines?

In the end it has to come down to a trade off - and there is a reasonable discussion to be had about trade off which you are avoiding by cloaking your argument as a fundamental principle in a way that simply doesn't stack up.

"And right now, only criminals have them"

Yes, and if you legalise guns, it is likely that more criminals will have them, and guns will be more likely to be used in criminal endeavors, and simple possession of a weapon can't be a reason to take a criminal off the street any more; resulting in a red queens race. Overall safety will go down, and will not be distributed more evenly as e.g. women will still be the target of choice.

Your analysis is hopelessly atomic without a view of the system wide impacts. It is a simple recorded fact that banning hand guns in the UK had an overall reduction of offenses where hand guns were used in another criminal activity. This argument that it creates an environment where crime is more prolific and lethal because of the unequal distribution of weapons is faulty both in reasoning (overly simplistic) and not borne out by evidence.

" You are talking about this as if this “determination” is not fluid"

I can't work out if your are being deliberately obtuse.

I told you what I would do in the situation where I had discretion: attack neither and look for an unarmed person.

Then I told you what I would do if, for some reason, I had an overriding imperative that would force me to attack a specific person: I would probably be as equally likely to do it. If I fail, which is more likely than not if the person has a tazer, I'm going to prison for aggravated assault at least - so whatever is compelling me to attack this person would probably compel me (or cause me to believe it is a good idea to proceed) to attack someone with a gun also.

"most people know a gun is more dangerous than a taser"
It is, but you are ignoring the wider context. What I care about is *failure* as that has consequences too. If I am tazed, the attacking individual can trivially kill me with a few kicks to the head. They are likely to be able to restrain me also. And I stand a reasonable chance of serious (and possibly lethal) injury depending on how I fall.

Whatever is compelling me to take all of these risks to attack someone with a tazer, is probably going to lead me to conclude I should attack someone with a gun also.

"Those that remain undeterred by a gun, will die at a higher rate,"
Yes, but all of those deterred by a gun are likely to have been also deterred by a tazer, which is the point you are missing - partly because of the absurd way you have framed your problem - coming at it, as you have, from the starting point of constructing an argument as to why a gun should be allowed; not from a position of "what weapons can be justified to provide reasonable capacity for self defense vs the systemic risk created in the system".

Simplistic, theoretical, un-pragmatic and without regard for the actual evidence.
Seb
Member
Fri Apr 30 11:47:33
Nim:

"a gun isn’t an escalation above a taser, that would scare away, an even higher number"

Quantify it then. What is your estimate of the marginal deterrence factor of a gun vs a tazer and how would that translate into improved safety for an average woman say; vs decreased safety for the broader population (including women) due to higher prevalence of guns increasing the use of guns by criminals and thus the barriers to entry into robbery etc.

The point is, the benefit is likely marginal. I suspect very few people who would be deterred by a gun, would not be deterred by a taser.

Similarly, I suspect most people who would not be deterred by a taser would also not be deterred by a gun (probably because they underestimate the willingness of the attacking individual to successfully use it against them).
patom
Member
Fri Apr 30 12:16:53
Um, if I may. This dance reminds me of when there was a truckers strike back in the early 80's. There were reports of trucks being shot at from hiding along interstate highways.
One clown that I met at a terminal in New Jersey said he ain't afraid of no snipers. I asked him why. He said because he had three guns in his truck. I asked him how he would be able to determine where any shooter was if he was driving at 60 mph when gun fire would hit him or his truck.

If someone is determined to shoot you, they aren't going to give you ample opportunity to reply with a gun or anything else.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting there were quite a few that had concealed carry permits and were carrying during the event. None of them were foolish enough to pull their guns for fear of being shot as part of the shooting event. Besides they didn't have a clue where the shooter was shooting from.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Apr 30 13:18:33
"I suspect most people who would not be deterred by a taser would also not be deterred by a gun"

Lol. Most people would be retarded if so. Both TASERs and stun guns have reduced effectiveness against attackers with high BMIs, drugs or alcohol in their system, or more than one layer of clothing.

The stakes aren't even comparable. An attacker being temporarily incapacitated and uncomfortable is not remotely the same as being shot, and every rational adult, including those with reduced intelligence and impulse control, can immediately ascertain the difference.

But then, this is the guy whining about forty-six people in three years in a nation of 328 million.
TJ
Member
Fri Apr 30 15:53:47
Self defense:

The variable's are endless. My 68 year old female neighbor thwarted a burglary by two individuals with her 38 at 5Am on a weekday morning while getting ready to leave her house for work. They got cocky with her and told her there was nothing she could do to keep them from taking anything they wanted. That is when she pulled out her 38 and they quickly scooted. When they did she immediately called the police and they were captured 3 blocks away with the stolen items in their possession. I can't imagine how many times that happens in the U.S. on a yearly basis with violent and not violent offenders. Many are probably not even reported. Don't brandish a weapon if you don't intend to us it if necessary. Maintaining your situational awareness is a major plus.

Cost of weapons:

Stun gun 10 to 30 dollars and of little use to thwart an aggressor.

Taser 450 to 1100 hundred dollars that can be lethal with a direct hit to the chest if in range of capacity.

Defense pistol 200 to 350 dollars.

Which do you think a law abiding individual, especially of low income, is going to purchase considering the level of price and risk?
Obviously criminals, most often, consider risk and options equally at different levels.

As for school shootings:

There are nearly 131 thousand schools combining elementary, middle and K12 in the U.S with approximately 54.4 million students.

In seven years, 2020 being the last year of the study, there were 3 mass school shootings, not meant to be taken as the only school shootings.

Combining all school shootings there were 129 deaths and 270 people wounded on school premises. 208 of those wounded were students according to the supposedly bipartisan studies I've recently reviewed. I have no reason to believe statically that they are inaccurate aside from a reasonable margin of error.

Additionally there were 705 deaths of young children from being left in a vehicle suffering from heatstroke in the years between 1998 and 2020 because of horribly neglectful guardians or parents.

Any school shooting is a tragic event, but the much larger problem is not on school premises.

The highest percentage of off school premise shootings impact the majority-minority communities. Approximately 3,000 children and teens (ages 0 to 19) are shot and killed, and 15,000 shot and wounded, annually.

Personally I am a legal pro-gun owner that has had extensive training and also maintains a frequent practice schedule to remain familiar with my weapons. Simple safety hunter classes aren't sufficient for the application of self defense as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure many will disagree with me when it comes to what I believe to be adequate preparedness.

It's entirely possible I've made errors concerning school shootings. If you want to verify where I got the information on school shootings the link is provided. If I've made errors I expect to be corrected, but if you disagree with the site take it up with them. :)

http://eve...n-american-schools/#who-we-are

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 30 18:01:59
"Marginal"

So, now you agree that a gun is more effective than a taser, but now you question by how much. This is a very painful progress, but credit where credit is due, I suppose.

Go head, go and google how effective tasers are in the hands of police, I will wait, just... prepare yourself to be underwhelmed. You will find, using tasers regularly leads to, simply pissing the person off even more, making them more belligerent, resulting in police having to shoot them anyway. One number, is that 1/12 of police shootings is after using a taser proves to be ineffective. Anything from 40-70% effective depending on department asked. Marginal effects you say. Your assertion is completely false. It just further cements, that you are living in a fantasy world where serious bodily injury or DEATH, are not very consequential things. So, "marginally" increasing your chance to survive is not a big deal.

Here is something you probably have not thought about. Evolution is taking place in the margins between life and death. Survival of the fittest, is resolved in the margins of populations. Most of the gazelles survive, those that becomes lunch are marginal losses, individuals who often make marginal errors. Lot of close calls in the wild, where the lunch survives by the margins thinner than a whisker. How do you like them marginal effects?

This is how prey survive and this is how you survive with these intuitions of yours, as a sheep in a giant herd of sheep. Don't move and wait for the sheep dogs to come, the chances of you being the sheep that the wolves grab, is marginal after all. I was not born to be a sheep, and besides I know way too much about violence and how easy it is to kill someone, just with your bare hands.

Do you even want tasers to become legal in UK? Surprise me, by saying yes.




"I suspect most people who would not be deterred by a taser would also not be deterred by a gun"

Your intuitions on this are just horribly horribly wrong. Like you are truly living on another planet wrong and I can't speak whatever language it is the people from your planet speak. A thick winter coat or some loose clothing and whether the taser works or not is at best decided by the flip of a coin. Judging by how many times police taser seem to fail, when they are not jumped by someone, ready, aiming and have some training, I would say it is far worse for a civilian.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 30 18:15:32
Seb
"Quantify it then."

There is no data on this that I am aware, it is intuitive. If I attacked someone and they pulled out a taser, I still like my chances. If they pull out a gun, that is a totally different ball game. Shit just got real, as they call it.

Seb
Member
Sat May 01 06:53:56
Patom:
Exactly.

Nim:

"So, now you agree that a gun is more effective than a taser, but now you question by how much. This is a very painful progress, but credit where credit is due, I suppose."

Nim, go back and read what I wrote.

"F.ex. a taser offers a great deal of capacity for self defense that can equalize against physical strength."

If I meant to say that it offered the same capacity, I'd have said so. And I clarified this point.

At this point I have to assume you are either incapable of just unwilling to pursue the conversation in good faith.

In any case you are still obsessing over the intrinsic utility of the weapon, rather than the cost benefit decision of the attacker and how much risk the attacker is willing to take on.

Your example with the police is a great example: of the people that were not deterred by police when they wielded tazers were undeterred despite knowing the police had and would proceed to use lethal force if needed. So the relative efficacy of tazers doesn't tell us anything useful.
It is also suffering selection bias as the figure of merit is how many people are deterred or defeated by tazers Vs how many are not, rather than the number of people undeterred by tazers and not defeated by them, that are then defeated with a gun.


Yes, there will be some people who would not deterred by tazer, most of those would also not be deterred by guns; and in that case some of those individuals would be overcome with a gun, but would not be overcome by tazers.

That's likely a very small proportion (hence why I said "great deal" rather than "the same").

In reality though, legalising guns in the UK at least will lead to a far greater use of guns by criminals. The likelihood is then more crime, more violent crime and more lethal violent crime - reversing the trend generated by the hand gun ban.


"Do you even want tasers to become legal in UK"
No, for much the same reason. The biggest users would be criminals who in most situations would have the tactical advantage even if the victim was armed.

Higher prevalence of weapons will always benefit the criminal more.

The point about tasers is to illustrate how you are working backwards from a point of theoretical principle applied to an atomistic, unrealistic model of an interaction - not looking at the systemic effects and risks. And even then you are not considering other options in that context.

But as I said, it's pretty clear you aren't actually reading what I said, or are engaging in Sam Adams level dishonesty. So let's call it a day.


Seb
Member
Sat May 01 06:59:14
"attacked someone and they pulled out a taser"

That's foolish. Tazers effectiveness is above 50% in the field (varies from 55% to 80%), though the 90%+ rate quoted by the company is clearly wrong.

You are more likely than not to be incapacitated, and it you are, there is nothing to stop your would be victim giving you a few good kicks in the head to finish you off.

jergul
large member
Sat May 01 07:40:18
Part of the disagreement rests in awkward wording choices.

Deterrence is particular. People are not deterred when confronted with a flight of fight choice.

I think the key determinant in a fight would be range. Can you grab whatever is pointing at you, or do you have a better chance running and ducking?

Taser, gun, knife. Knife would be the least grabbable of the options.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon May 03 10:35:07
Seb
“At this point I have to assume you are either incapable of just unwilling to pursue the conversation in good faith.”

You did not understand the point of my initial question. It was a simple hygiene question. The answer is, that a gun is far more effective than a taser in any imaginable scenario, with virtually any operator. There is no math to show you, no equations for you to solve, I am sorry, it is just common sense. And you couldn’t provide a clear answer and move on to the central thrust of your argument - the totality of risk/benefit for all of society. Instead like a petulant child, you have to “win” every argument and not give one inch. If you find me being “obtuse”, I can only do so much with what you give me.

And btw, I have raised dozens of points, undermining your position and specific arguments, which you do not deal with or respond to. The most recent example, not understanding the value of a marginal increase to survival, both for the individual and for how it relates to evolution in a population. We plan our existence around marginal threats of ruination.

“how much risk the attacker is willing to take on.”

It doesn’t matter what risk he is willing to take, that is what I explained and part of the “intrinsic value” of a gun. “Dead niggas don’t make no moves”, as my homeboy Biggie said.

“of the people that were not deterred by police when they wielded tazers”

The fact that the guns did stop them, is a curious point to overlook. I don’t care about tasers, it is an item you introduced. I am aware that there are nut bags in society, sociopaths who wouldn’t care if you had a nuke strapped to yourself. That isn't most thugs, they are people with fears and insecurities, like everyone else. Opportunistic ordinary scumbags, who like me understand guns pose a bigger threat to them than a taser.

“rather than the number of people undeterred by tazers and not defeated by them, that are then defeated with a gun.”

Well, you wait for the numbers while I mind the safety of myself and my family. You seem to think 50/50 are acceptable odds, you don’t understand that the 50% of the times you fail, you have probably made things worse. With those odds, it is better to be a sheep and get robbed/raped/assaulted, just play dead. And this is what I mean, I can’t convey years of experiences and conversations from martial arts gyms for you. It is an easy fix though, you have a bunch of theories about violence, go test them empirically in the controlled setting of a martial arts lab.

“No, for much the same reason.”

And here you are arguing for something, you don’t even believe in, which you believe is only marginally different than a gun on all counts that matter. You even say are against it, for much the same reasons. I am glad, because now I can just throw all your arguments for taser in the trash.

“it's pretty clear you aren't actually reading what I said”

Not true, you just don’t understand that the theories in your head have no bearing on physical reality. I am getting a very strong vibe you think self-defense is easy, because you have no idea how easy it would be, for me, someone hopelessly far down the food chain of fighting skills, to beat you to death. I hope my point is coming across and not misunderstood. I suck at fighting, that is the point. Here is a real conversation I had, when I was in my physical prime after having gotten destroyed by a guy, smaller than me:

Me: how long have you trained?
Him: 6 months.
My brain: why whole life has been a lie

“Tazers effectiveness is above 50%”

What I already explained:

“Judging by how many times police taser seem to fail, when they are not jumped by someone, ready, aiming and have some training, I would say it is far worse for a civilian.”

So, realistically less than a coin toss and in the event of failure, risk making the assailant even angrier.

“So let's call it a day.”

By all means. I will just repeat this for future conversations: the conversations are better served, if you assume you are not smarter than me. There is a lot of domain specific knowledge here, which you clearly do not have. You just assumed from the start a bunch of stuff about how I ended up here. The fact is, I started where many people in this country start: private gun ownership should be illegal. Maybe you missed it, but I think it is too easy to get guns in the USA. There are things Americans can do and are doing, sensible regulation, to minimize the collateral damage of guns. I think there is a harmful kind of culture around guns in some circles, equivalent to a religion.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon May 03 10:35:43
Jergul
“People are not deterred when confronted with a flight of fight choice.”

Is this inherent to the “flight” option of fight or flight? Individuals who are deterred (scared), flee. You can be deterred from engaging in the first place, but you can also be deterred from escalating further at any point, as the facts of the matter emerge. Maybe I am grossly misunderstanding what you are saying.

“I think the key determinant in a fight would be range.”

This is true and I kind of touched on it, a stun gun will put you in grappling range. Of the three options you list, guns have the best range by far, they are easy to use, they require very little training and practically no strength or fighting skills. I picked my wife as the baseline for a reason. I would put a knife above a taser, a knife, unlike a taser, can be reused after the first stabbing attempt. It doesn’t have the same stopping power as gun, it still requires close distance and some physical ability. You should however never grab things when you can kick them. I am sorry it has come to this Jergul, but I must resort to flattery again, you are probably very proficient with a knife, unlike most people. You are not the lowest common denominator in this equations :)
Seb
Member
Tue May 04 03:08:53
Nim:

"The answer is, that a gun is far more effective than a taser in any imaginable scenario,"

Firstly, I cannot help if your rhetorical questions are badly structured and allow me to answer the question while rejecting the premise. I have provided two clear answers to this question.

And my point - which you evidently fail to understand - is that I *DO* reject the premise. It is well established that opportunistic crime targets the easiest mark - therefore the question is not how much more effective a gun is over a taser, it is how much more effective a taser is over nothing.


"There is no math to show you, no equations for you to solve, I am sorry, it is just common sense."

I haven't remotely suggested there is math or equations to solve, I don't know why you persist in this bluster. It is just further evidence of your fundamental dishonesty.

"It doesn’t matter what risk he is willing to take,"
This is fundamentally wrong - not in your flawed personal common sense, but in established criminology.

"The fact that the guns did stop them, is a curious point to overlook"

Good job that I did not then: "Yes, there will be some people who would not deterred by tazer, most of those would also not be deterred by guns; and in that case some of those individuals would be overcome with a gun, but would not be overcome by tazers."

This is what I mean by serial dishonesty.

"That isn't most thugs, they are people with fears and insecurities, like everyone else."

Indeed, which is what I have pointed out: they will in the overwhelming instances be deterred by significantly less threat than lethal force.

"Well, you wait for the numbers while I mind the safety of myself and my family."
No - I am not supporting legalization of handguns in the UK - which there is strong evidence to show would lead to quantifiable increases in harms and crime rates; just because you've convinced yourself it is necessary for self defense. You want the change, you must provide evidence.

"You seem to think 50/50 are acceptable odds,"
LOL! no, you are the one arguing 50:50 odds are acceptable. I'm saying that in >>60% of the cases, something less than a gun would prevent the attack.

"You even say are against it, for much the same reasons. I am glad, because now I can just throw all your arguments for taser in the trash."
As I said, the point was to demonstrate how you are fixated on a particular solution, not the problem, and working backwards. But if anything, this sentence show just how broken your logic is.

"I am getting a very strong vibe you think self-defense is easy, because you have no idea how easy it would be, for me, someone hopelessly far down the food chain of fighting skills, to beat you to death"

You are dangerously over-personalising this conversation. I have not idea how you could reasonably come to this conclusion. It is precisely because self-defense is so hard that opportunistic criminals vastly prefer to target those with no capacity for it than those who have even marginal capacity. After all, you are the chap arguing that it is acceptable risk to go after someone with a Taser with 50:50 odds of success, failure which puts your life in the hands of the defender.

This is just incoherent nonsnese.

"Judging by how many times police taser seem to fail, when they are not jumped by someone, ready, aiming and have some training, I would say it is far worse for a civilian."

The same would be true of a gun - how many times to police miss? This is why so many people end up being shot with their own weapon by assailants.

What do you think acceptable odds are for a mugging. If it was only 10%, a mugger would expect to fail catastrophically (as in high liklihood of severe physical injury or arrest) is more likely than not after 7 muggings. There's Darwin in action for you. I strongly suspect selectively legalising non-lethal weapons would have similar effects on crime rates but different trade offs; and dismissing it out of hand in favour of handguns simply on the basis that a handgun has a greater ability to stop an attack not deterred (a very marginal impact in overall safety as most attackers would be deterred by much less) is the kind of sloppy policy making.

Generally, opportunistic criminals will avoid people with any kind of weapon that they think could be used against them.

"if you assume you are not smarter than me."
I don't assume I am smarter than you - but you use utterly terrible lines of argument that are lacking in coherence and are often self-contradicting. You also assign to me positions that are directly contradictory to what I have actually stated. For example, right now "Maybe you missed it, but I think it is too easy to get guns in the USA." Which was my opening position to the question of whether I thought handguns should be banned.

I really don't know how to respond - if you are going to create an argument by ignoring what I write, arguing with phantoms, and doing so with cackhanded arguments that lack internal coherence, it's not a matter of *assuming* my arguments are cleverer than yours.



Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 04 04:59:31
”It is well established that opportunistic crime targets the easiest mark”

I want the easiest marks, people like your wife and my wife to have effective options. You don’t. THAT is the premise. In your world the strongest and most able men do what they want, until more men arrive to stop them.

You write pragraphs of nonsense about marginal effects, wild assertations about the efficacy of devices you don’t even think should be legal (!) on and on, yet you seem to fail to grasp even the simplest consequences of what you are saying. Because, you do not understand violence. You say you understand self-defense is difficult, yet fail to understand what that means in practice with regards to rape/robbery/assault and the singeling out of weaker targets. It is incredible really, the answer is slapping you in the face.

Like you I think things are contextual, and violence (not a sliver of violence) together with the unequal playing field is the context. Violence isn’t going away any time soon and we are not going to genetically enhance the weaker members of our societies any sooner. The need to defend yourself isn’t going out of fashion in our lifetime.

You go full retard when the question of equality pertains to career choice, but when it comes to the fundamental and very real risk of violence and ruin, nothing. The dots simply will not connect.

”You are dangerously over-personalising this conversation.”

Uhm, no. I am giving you empirical knowledge cultivated in a lab. The fact that a number of rather unimposing people can kill you (a man) easily with their hands, is an objective statement about physical reality. You will say, ”I know”, but then fail to understand what that means, not just for you, but for people who will lend themselves more easily than you as easy targets.

I think people who weigh 50 kg, who do not have my interest in martial arts nor my testosterone levels should have effective tools to defend themselves. You don’t even think they should own tasers! You may not grasp this, but your stance is anti physically weak people, in practice females. You want them deprived of the means to protect their life and health. The natural consequence of that is they have to rely on stronger men to protect them.

There is no way I can undermined the most fundamental aspect of existence, life and the individual right to sustain it. And that is the consequence of your position.



Seb
Member
Tue May 04 05:32:34
Nim:

"I want the easiest marks, people like your wife and my wife to have effective options. You don’t."

This is what I mean by hopelessly atomistic. Firstly, this in the scenario of tazer vs gun - I do not accept a tazer would be ineffective. So this is a misrepresentation. More dishonesty.

Secondly, what is "Effective" is contextual. As has been pointed out, if you legalise guns, it is far more likely the assailant will have a gun and that if they do target someone, they will do it when they are unable to use a weapon effectively. Indeed, there is a reason we saw crime stats drop when handguns were banned: the risk/reward for carrying a weapon decreased sharply, and carrying a gun for most street crime ceased to be sensible. As a result the circumstances where a criminal had a decisive advantage dropped. You can run from a man with a knife. You cannot run from a man with a gun.

If, overall, you want your wife to have the best safety, you work to create the safest environment. Instead, you are working on the basis that violence is inevitable and liklihood of violence or its lethality will not be altered by legalising guns, and that therefore the best solution is to maximise the force the defender can bring to bear. This is flawed logic.

"In your world the strongest and most able men do what they want, until more men arrive to stop them."
I really don't know why you have gendered this, by the way.


Look, it's clear you have this odd view that legalising handguns in a society where they are banned will somehow enhance safety.

Yet in your geeking out about "empirical knowledge cultivated in a lab", you've failed to consider that the likelihood is that the would-be assailant is armed and will approach your wife with gun drawn when she is disarmed is now the dominant threat model. In the real world, violence does not occur as a series of one-on-one encounters from a cold start like a beat 'em up computer game.

To the extent that a gun provides capacity for self defense, overwhelmingly is as a deterrent. However that is entirely negated if the assailant is armed, or approaches their target in a way that negates that. Having a gun in your bag is no use if you are attacked at close range with a knife.

You are, as Patom likened it, the driver of a truck on the interstate, who is not worried about snipers because they have two guns in the back to shoot back with.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 04 07:00:48
“This is what I mean by hopelessly atomistic. “

And this what I mean, by having a bunch of theories about violence and reality that are hopelessly uninformed. When you are attacked or in other ways assailed, you ARE an atom. Let us assume you have a button that instantly calls the police and notifies them where you are. Until they arrive, you are helpless little atom.

“If, overall, you want your wife to have the best safety, you work to create the safest environment”

You are living in a fantasy world because, among other things, you have no concept of potential violence* like you have for potential energy. This ideal state is never going to be delivered, because you can’t control these contexts without turning your country into Saudi Arabia or Iran or some other authoritarian or tightly controlled culture. This is what most people do not get about these places and how they compare to say Sweden, UK or even USA. Open and liberal societies, that have liberated the individual vs cultures that have very tight and conservative ideas about order and the collective good. There is less crime in the latter. Punishment is harsh, judicial rights low (more innocent people in jail, but who cares about marginal effects?), and civil society and individuals are heavily involved in policing the behavior of others.

*genetically we are not changing that much and without capital punishment or guns, we are not weeding out the violence that exists on that level. It is just a fact, not a desire. Go look up how many children people in prison have, vs people with PhDs.

You can either eat the cake or have it. When you have invented this system that allows us to eat the cake and have it too, call me and I will change my stance on guns. Because yes, in a world where the risk of violence and violent death is almost non-existent, I don’t see a use for guns besides for hunting. We can also start defunding the police at the same time.

“you are working on the basis that violence is inevitable”

…because it is! The UK and Sweden are two of most civilized and prosperous countries in the world and we have INSANE levels of violence. This fact hasn’t really settled in your brain, has it?

“I really don't know why you have gendered this, by the way.”

Jesus lord, deliver me from sebs stupid questions… Because it is! Physical attributes are the single biggest difference between men and women, not IQ, not interest in technology, but physical strength.

I am sorry, it is impossible to have a coherent discussion with you on this. All I am doing is dragging you, kicking and screaming to a date with reality, you simply are not interested it. So be it. You are going to go through your life without ever having to reassess any of this, the same way you will never have to appreciate the value of having a home insurance (but will keep wasting money on). The violence is always going to be at the margins and the herd is going shield you. For you to budge, terrible things need to happen to you, that I sincerely hope never do.

Peace.
Seb
Member
Tue May 04 07:53:13
Nim:

"When you are attacked or in other ways assailed, you ARE an atom"

The liklihood of your being assailed in the first place, however, is systemic - and that remains the dominant risk factor to you overall. And even your liklihood to be able to defend yourself depends on what the attacker is armed with, which is also a factor in a broader systemic view of violent crime.

Great, lets legalise hand guns. If you are attacked by an unarmed assailant who does not factor in your liklihood to be armed - you will fair better. BUT, if we make handguns legal
1. You are more likely to be attacked in the first place as criminals are more likely to be armed as access to guns is easier, emboldening them to attack in situations where previously they would/could not
2. If you are attacked, it is more likely to be by someone who is armed.
3. If you are attacked by someone who is armed with a gun, you are less likely to be able to flee.
4. If you are attacked by someone who is armed with a gun, if you attempt to exercise self defense, you are more likely to get killed.


All in all, systemically, you are likely to be at a greater risk if gun prevalence increases from nearly zero.

What you seem to imply is an unrealistic situation where legalising guns has no systemic impact on the nature of violent crimes themselves, or criminal opportunism.

You just want to continue to look at single interactions under unrealistic contexts.
chuck
Member
Tue May 04 07:53:31
"You cannot run from a man with a gun."

Meh. Disagree for pistols. If you've got 20 feet between you and a jerkoff with a pistol, running is viable. Pistol marksmanship takes work.

Someone with training can probably plink you at 2-3x that distance with a pistol though, so caveat runner.
Seb
Member
Tue May 04 07:59:03
"cause you can’t control these contexts without turning your country into Saudi Arabia or Iran or some other authoritarian or tightly controlled culture."

And yet we have banned guns, and do not have a theocratic dictatorship; nor have we had an epidemic of crime either.

We have had a reduction in lethality of violent crime though.

It's almost as if you are making hand waiving arguments from first principles completely detached from any kind of evidence base.

"because it is!"

Are you seriously claiming it is inevitable that every individual will end up in a situation where they are defending against a violent criminal?

It is not inevitable that this confrontation occurs.

And more realistically what this confrontation looks like in a society where gun prevalence is higher is someone approaching you from behind and threatening you with a gun while you are unaware; rather than some kind of quick-draw wild west shootout where you have enough notice to arm, aim and shoot a gun before someone attacks you.

"Because it is!"
Then why are the victims of most violent crimes predominantly men?
Seb
Member
Tue May 04 08:00:07
chuck:

Ok, technically it is viable if you want to try the odds - but in most situations people probably won't try it. They'll hand over their wallet or whatever.
Seb
Member
Tue May 04 08:01:49
Generally, if you have a society in which hand guns are not legal, and criminals largely avoid using them for most crimes because they increase the risk of detection and sanction etc. adding them back into the mix isn't going to improve the safety of the average citizen.
Nekran
Member
Tue May 04 08:22:49
I think it is you who is confused about the realities of violence, Nim.

Having a gun would in almost no situation of an innocent victim in the street do any good. It would often do harm though (even if only because it's an extra thing that would be taken from them... that shit's expensive).
Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 04 10:42:17
"Having a gun would in almost no situation of an innocent victim in the street do any good."

Lol. Imagine thinking like this. What kind of retarded left wing weenie nonsense is required to have this kind of thought.
Nekran
Member
Tue May 04 10:48:13
Not everybody is a superace fighter pilot John Wick genius dreamboat who got refused for military duty like you are, Sammy.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 04 10:56:11
All kidding aside, he is more correct than you, on this. There are more privately owned guns in the USA than people, they are 5% of the worlds population and have almost 50% of all the privately owned guns. Your theories about guns are not reflected in the real world.

So, if what you said was true, the USA should look very different than it actually does. Or let us put it another way, if what you say IS true, then god must exist and have actually blessed America.
jergul
large member
Tue May 04 11:10:48
Nimi
Since this thread seems to be about killing chickens...

Egglaying hens are gender selected shortly after hatching, but that would only matter if you eat eggs or hens.

Meat producing chickens are coed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broiler
Seb
Member
Tue May 04 11:27:56
Nim:

"So, if what you said was true, the USA should look very different than it actually does"

The stats you posted in the last thread showed US robbery rates were distinctly average, not lower, than other countries with no guns.

According to you, they ought to be significantly lower as criminals are less able to take money from the well defebded citizen.
Seb
Member
Tue May 04 11:31:14
http://www...es/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

Just to remind you.

Without controlling for other factors, it's quite difficult to make this claim that America disproves nekran.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 04 11:37:13
"The stats you posted in the last thread showed US robbery rates were distinctly average, not lower, than other countries with no guns."

Crime rates, including murder, are not well correlated with gun ownership rates. Either inside the US or internationally. Whatever overall effect guns have, positive or negative, in their current implementation, is dwarfed by other factors: wealth, drugs, and the presence of africans.

I suspect the safest society would be one where citizens in good standing have access to lots of guns, but strong efforts are made to keep them out of the hands of retards.

Then again if we just banned retards in general, society would improve dramatically and the gun effect would still be minimal.
Habebe
Member
Tue May 04 11:46:40
Is gun control even gonna be worth it in Europe anymore? Its not perfected, but with 3d printers it will surely change the game.

I seen Spain busted a place for printing them but you can't bust them all.

#the revolution is coming
Seb
Member
Tue May 04 12:42:32
Sam:

"Crime rates, including murder, are not well correlated with gun ownership rates."

I know. Nim's argument was that the comparatively lower rate of assaults proves that gun ownership reduces violent crime.

I don't think you can really prove or disprove much at all by cross country comparisons for the reasons you state (I said as much in the last thread) - the best you can really do is look at the impact of countries that have changed gun laws (or where gun prevalence has changed sharply) but there is no guarantee that the trends seen would replicate in different countries.

On that basis I thought that trying to ban handguns in the US would likely be impossible politically and might actually increase crime rates in some areas; whereas in the UK where hand guns are already banned, re-introducing them is likely to disproportionately benefit criminals more than honest civilians.


Habebe:
"Its not perfected, but with 3d printers it will surely change the game."

Not really. It might let some criminals more easily access a gun, but possession is treated as a serious crime in itself.

My guess is that for most situations it will remain a tool for high return organized crime and gang related activities - where guns are in any case possible using machine shopped, reactivated or converted weapons.

Finally, 3d printed guns are likely to be pretty dangerous in themselves to the user.
habebe
Member
Tue May 04 13:30:37
"Finally, 3d printed guns are likely to be pretty dangerous in themselves to the user."

For now mabey. But in time it will likely be perfected.Id say they are no more dangerous than many AK 47s around the world that are made half assed.

Right now its very hard to obtain a gun in most places in the world.This is IMO a a benefit for controlling guns through legislation.

Soon it likely be harder to have populations that don't have access to large quantities of guns.
Seb
Member
Wed May 05 09:48:17
habebe:

"Soon it likely be harder to have populations that don't have access to large quantities of guns."

The reason that most countries without a high prevalence of guns continue to have that isn't simply because it's hard to physically obtain one, it is because it is illegal to do so.

Being able to illegally manufacture one in a 3d printer isn't going to lead to a massive take up of weapons - those criminals that think the risk incurred to them (in the form of higher sentences) make it worthwhile to have a gun, can get a gun. It's not supply driven in that sense.

It's when people can legally get a gun that things become difficult, because it reduces the cost/risk to criminals to posses and carry a gun by giving them an excuse to. This leads them to use them more frequently in criminal enterprises which in turn drives up demand for "self defense" etc.

I don't think gun prevalence will increase dramatically off the back of 3-d printers. There will be some people of course - there always are.

There is also ammo to think about.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share