Non-IT News Thread
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
And I think those people are the ones we should be worried about. It's not their job to carry a weapon to protect me, I didn't ask them to and they should not be vigilantes.
So if a robber is holding a store hostage and pointing his gun at you, you don't want me to disarm him (by shooting him or otherwise) ?
You are taking it out of context. I don't want anyone casually in the store with a gun. You are making the context that you are already there, the risks are already taken and now should the gun be used after the things I think are bad have already happened and can't be changed.
If you are asking if I want you to be in the store with the gun, absolutely not.
-
@dafyre said:
I agree with that premise. But if somebody tries to rob me, and I have a gun, I'm going to use it. That's not premeditated, that is self-defense.
Not premeditated to shot that person in particular, but carrying a gun with the intent to shoot someone robbing you is definitely premeditated. You thought about it ahead of time just in this thread, for example.
-
@dafyre said:
By and large, I agree with you on vigilantism, but offering a helping hand, blade or bullet to a fellow citizen in harm's way does not make you a vigilante.
It does if you left the house with a gun for that intent. That's exactly what it is.
-
@dafyre said:
The person I am talking about has a concealed carry permit and is in the wrong place at the wrong time and takes action to prevent harm to someone else. If it was within my power to keep you from getting shot, I would do it.
That's fine. But it's getting into the situation in the first place that is the problem. Not using the gun well once it is too late.
-
@dafyre said:
And when you say vigilantism, I am assuming the person who shot the robber / thief, etc, just vanishes into the night like Batman. I'm not talking about those kind of folks. I am talking about the guy with the carry permit who shoots the robber to keep you from getting hurt, and then stays there, waiting for the police to arrive.
Vigilantism doesn't suggest that they are super heroes or disappear. That's not at all what it is. A vigilante is a civilian or organization that undertakes law enforcement (or actions in the pursuit of self-perceived justice) that is without legal authority.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them?
Because it puts everyone at risk. It lowers the safety of people in public.
But then we're back to protecting myself from the robber who wants to steal my car. He may just want to steal my car, but the moment he pulls out a weapon is the moment that I assume he intends me harm and will defend myself judiciously (weapon or not).
Oh, and to answer your other question... I'm not afraid. The Smith & Wesson or Glock comment was supposed to be snarky, lol.
Look at what happened to Target. They requested people to not bring guns into their stores (they have this right, that's fine, I understand)... and now we have (http://www.katc.com/story/29048798/lafayette-police-investigating-armed-robbery-in-target-parking-lot).
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Not premeditated to shot that person in particular, but carrying a gun with the intent to shoot someone robbing you is definitely premeditated. You thought about it ahead of time just in this thread, for example.
So I stand there and let them rob me?
-
@dafyre said:
But then we're back to protecting myself from the robber who wants to steal my car. He may just want to steal my car, but the moment he pulls out a weapon is the moment that I assume he intends me harm and will defend myself judiciously (weapon or not).
You are using anecdotes to dispute stats. It doesn't work. The stats say allowing guns puts everyone at risk. Plain and simple. If you feel that stats are wrong, dispute the stats. Pointing out anecdotes that don't even quite dispute the facts doesn't change the bottom line. The availability of guns, the use of them, having them in public puts people at risk.
You see "robber with a gun." I see "person who carries a gun using it to rob me." I see the legal gun carrying permit holding guy and the robber the same - both are carrying a weapon to make them feel safe while making others feel threatened. One has decided to use it to rob me, the other may or may not do the same when the opportunity presents itself. Both are gun carrying and I can't tell which is which because "normal" people are allowed to go out armed like criminals.
-
-
Are you saying that I'm letting myself be robbed by not carrying a weapon?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
By and large, I agree with you on vigilantism, but offering a helping hand, blade or bullet to a fellow citizen in harm's way does not make you a vigilante.
It does if you left the house with a gun for that intent. That's exactly what it is.
What about somebody that leaves their house like they do with their cell phone? Where I go, it goes. My gun locked in the glovebox of my car does me no good if I don't have access to it when I'm being robbed trying to get back into my car.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That makes no sense.
If standing that and letting myself get robbed makes no sense... then why does carrying a gun not make sense?
Are you saying that I'm letting myself be robbed by not carrying a weapon?
Not necessarily, but not very many people are well equipped to go head to head against some one who has a weapon of any kind.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That makes no sense.
If standing that and letting myself get robbed makes no sense... then why does carrying a gun not make sense?Are you saying that I'm letting myself be robbed by not carrying a weapon?
Not necessarily, but not very many people are well equipped to go head to head against some one who has a weapon of any kind.Problems with where you are going include the desire to have a confrontation rather than letting them steal something. Even if I had a gun I'm not going to use it to defend objects. That's ridiculous. Legal, maybe, but not wise. Not wise for anyone. And the assumption that you are going to be robbed by armed people. The whole point of not allowing guns in public is to reduce the chances of this happening at all.
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
Better to build a fence on top of the hill than a hospital beneath it.
-
@dafyre said:
What about somebody that leaves their house like they do with their cell phone? Where I go, it goes. My gun locked in the glovebox of my car does me no good if I don't have access to it when I'm being robbed trying to get back into my car.
You seem very intent on being robbed at gun point. Are you really worried about this?
And again, you can't keep repeating anecdotes that don't support the stats (or otherwise.) Is there a situation where carrying a gun might wind up with a better outcome than not for an individual anecdote? Of course. There is also a case for doing all kinds of seemingly horrible things that will have good potential outcomes in very specific cases. Shooting randomly into a crowd could hit someone that was going to do real harm. But chances are, you'll just hit someone innocent.
The problem with carrying guns is that, on average, more people and more innocent people get shot. That it can turn out good is just one scenario. That it can turn out badly is another and, as the stats show, the more likely one.
-
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
If he is posing for a picture with a loaded gun, then he's an idiot.
This is where you lose me - what? so you should only pose for a picture while holding a non loaded weapon? uhhhhh I don't get it.
Why do you need a loaded gun to take a picture? Admittedly, maybe idiot was too strong of a word, but it makes my point. Alas, we can only see so much in a picture, and infer many things that are not there.
If I'm out and about with my weapon and it's loaded, would you expect me to say.. wooo wait a min while I unload my weapon before you take a picture - hell no I wouldn't do that. But then again I wouldn't be out in public like this nutters anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You seem very intent on being robbed at gun point. Are you really worried about this?
No, he is using a single example and not randomly running all over the place trying to word his opponent to death in the conversation as you are.
@scottalanmiller said:
The problem with carrying guns is that, on average, more people and more innocent people get shot. That it can turn out good is just one scenario. That it can turn out badly is another and, as the stats show, the more likely one.
The problem with alcohol is that, on average, more people and more innocent people get killed by drunk drivers. That it can turn out good is just one scenario. That it can turn out badly is another and, as the stats show, the more likely one.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Problems with where you are going include the desire to have a confrontation rather than letting them steal something. Even if I had a gun I'm not going to use it to defend objects. That's ridiculous. Legal, maybe, but not wise. Not wise for anyone. And the assumption that you are going to be robbed by armed people. The whole point of not allowing guns in public is to reduce the chances of this happening at all.
I'm not defending objects. The moment they pull out a wepon, or the moment I am surrounded by more than one, is the moment it became self defense. How is somebody who isn't armed going to rob me?
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them? And then I am left bringing fists to a gun fight? Remember how well that worked out for the police in France? Sure, I could run, but you gotta remember my mindset. If I see a weapon, I assume it is going to be used... That is just the way I was brought up.
Better to build a fence on top of the hill than a hospital beneath it.
I agree. Even the best fence only needs one weak link before it is no longer a fence.
-
@Dashrender said:
If I'm out and about with my weapon and it's loaded, would you expect me to say.. wooo wait a min while I unload my weapon before you take a picture - hell no I wouldn't do that. But then again I wouldn't be out in public like this nutters anyway.
If you were out with your weapon would it be slung across your front at the ready at all times? Yes, they posed for a picture. But there is plenty of evidence from passive long recordings showing that most of these extremists carry that way intentionally at all times.
The problem with these extremists is that they practice bad firearm handling. Period.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You seem very intent on being robbed at gun point. Are you really worried about this?
No, he is using a single example and not randomly running all over the place trying to word his opponent to death in the conversation as you are.
A single example that doesn't support the conversation, however. It's an anecdote that the stats suggest is self-creating and is only viewed after the negative affects (or most) of the guns are removed and only the positive potential use case remains.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
A single example that doesn't support the conversation, however. It's an anecdote that the stats suggest is self-creating and is only viewed after the negative affects (or most) of the guns are removed and only the positive potential use case remains.
I wasn't supporting the conversation, I was highlighting your self creating stats.
