• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

"The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Guy With a Gun" Narrative Falls Apart in Uvalde

I think since women are statically less likely to use guns for the wrong reason we should make it a law that only women have a right to bare arms and men will just have to fend for ourselves by other means.
 
Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.
That's abject nonsense.

Any weapon favours the person who is most ready and willing to use it.

If a mugger steps from the shadows and puts a gun to your face, your holstered gun doesn't help you one iota.

If he is prepared to actually use lethal force, nothing you can do will "equalise" that situation. Guns just make the first person to resort to violence the most likely winner in a conflict.

That swings the balance away from 'equal', because if the weapons are bare hands, there's always a higher prior probability that the initiator of violence will be the loser.
And that no matter who the loser is, they walk away with their life.
 
Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.
That's abject nonsense.

Any weapon favours the person who is most ready and willing to use it.

If a mugger steps from the shadows and puts a gun to your face, your holstered gun doesn't help you one iota.

If he is prepared to actually use lethal force, nothing you can do will "equalise" that situation. Guns just make the first person to resort to violence the most likely winner in a conflict.

That swings the balance away from 'equal', because if the weapons are bare hands, there's always a higher prior probability that the initiator of violence will be the loser.
And that no matter who the loser is, they walk away with their life.
That's far from certain. One punch can kill.

But yes, on the whole, the fatality rate is far lower for the losers of fist-fights than for the losers of gun-fights.
 
We don't need to look at what happened in Uvlade to understand that good guys with guns rarely stop bad guys with guns, the research has already been done and since this board is supposedly made up of smart people who believe in scientific research, I thought I'd look for some on this subject.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

The link is very long, so I'm not going to quote much of it, but if you really want an honest answer to the question, please read it. It was done at least partly in Kennesaw, Ga, the city where gun ownership was made mandatory, although of course, that was impossible to enforce. The person who organized the study grew up with guns and wanted to know the truth regarding whether a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. The truth is that while this sometimes does happen, it's rare. It's more common that the person with the gun will be shot or his gun will be used to hurt someone innocent, including a member of his own family. For example, about a week or two ago, a man in ATL was sleeping with his gun under his pillow. It went off accidentally and killed his two year old son. That of course is an extremely bad case, as the gun owner obviously didn't use any common sense when it came to his gun, but just how many gun owners do you think have been trained to use guns safely? There are a lot of stupid or ignorant people who own guns.

I'm married to a gun toting liberal, who does understand gun safety, although about 5 or so years ago, he finally realized that carrying concealed wasn't such a good idea. He's been selling off his gun collection and still has a way to go. He, like many men, collected guns like many women collect jewelry. He was under the mistaken idea that guns were a good investment. Not so much. I was taught to use a gun, but never felt comfortable with one, so I've never carried or kept one in my possession. I've read too many stories about accidental gun deaths or about guns being snatched from the owner's hands and used against them. I hate guns. I hate the 2nd amendment, which imo, is one of the dumbest things the founders ever wrote into our constitution. Sadly, too many Americans value it more than the better parts.

I've also known many, mostly conservative women who think I'm nuts for not carrying a gun. One of them is in her 70s, has many health problems and can barely walk after surviving a bad case of COVID. I can just imagine what would happen if someone broke into her home and she tried to use a gun on them. IF the police in Uvalde were too scared or disorganized to try stop a man who was using a gun on children, how in the world would the average citizen competently use a gun on the bad guy. Sure, it happens sometimes, but the reverse is more often the case. Just do your DD and read the link from Scientific American for more details and evidence.

Btw, for those who don't know this, our idiot Republican governor recently did away with requirements for concealed carry permits. So, now anyone in Georgia can carry concealed without so much as a background check. I don't understand the gun fetish. It's insane, imo.
 
IF the police in Uvalde were too scared or disorganized to try stop a man who was using a gun on children, how in the world would the average citizen competently use a gun on the bad guy.
This part right here speaks to something I've been trying to dig at vigorously.

IF liberals are expected to tolerate the ubiquity of guns, THEN liberals are well justified in demanding the ubiquity of De-escalation training, an eclectic exposure to philosophies of use of force, and training in the effective use of a weapon.

If we are to be Sparta where everyone is a warrior to the public defense, then let us be Sparta and so be regular, that we may not go off half cocked.
 
For Texas, whose government believes in the 'good guy with gun' narrative, yes it is embarrassing.
Ya know, there are plenty of examples of armed citizens stopping bad guys. That there were cowards in Uvalde doesn’t change that.

What if neither of them had guns?
Knife beats empty hands. Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.
No, society and an easy camera are an equalizer.

Nothing, not a knife, not a gun, not even a small private army beats "can call the police and declare the evidence against you effectively and immediately".

Assuming the person in the video can be identified. Despite what's seen on a lot of police shows the government can't just take a video and get the identity of the people in it.
 
Texas now has next to no laws on carrying guns. So any moron can carry his gun with no license, and wandering loose. Cops can't stop anybody from this. Including young thugs. So doofus with gun is now a target for thug posses. Surround a Gomer, all pull guns and demand Goober's wallet, phone, car keys and gun. More morons looking to be a good guy with a gun. Looking for an excuse to shoot someone. And drunks with guns. A shooting outside a bar turning into Shoot Out At The OK Corral.

Texas, competing for Florida for the #1 spot on stupidest state.

While I support gun rights I feel it should be treated like cars--you show you know the law and how to operate them to get a license. (Yeah, concealed carry permits normally come with training requirements rather than test requirements. Tolerable, but I don't like the government dictating how you learn, just that you learn.)
I would prefer the government dictate that you learn based on at least one default "how", or at least be expected to try, before even the right of passage or coming of age upon which pivots the legal right to own such a weapon.

We do as much for sex, informing people of it before puberty happens, or near the start of it, so that everyone has at least some education even before it makes a difference.
With use of force it's not going to help--if everyone gets basics that means your opponent is at least as skilled as you are. They're also probably stronger and more willing to use force. Up to firearms that's going to make a big difference, the little guy is very unlikely to prevail.
 
Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.
That's abject nonsense.

Any weapon favours the person who is most ready and willing to use it.

If a mugger steps from the shadows and puts a gun to your face, your holstered gun doesn't help you one iota.

If he is prepared to actually use lethal force, nothing you can do will "equalise" that situation. Guns just make the first person to resort to violence the most likely winner in a conflict.

That swings the balance away from 'equal', because if the weapons are bare hands, there's always a higher prior probability that the initiator of violence will be the loser.
If somebody has the drop on you there's just about nothing you can do regardless of skill or weapons. You're a lot less likely to get hurt if the mugger has a gun than if he doesn't.
 
We don't need to look at what happened in Uvlade to understand that good guys with guns rarely stop bad guys with guns, the research has already been done and since this board is supposedly made up of smart people who believe in scientific research, I thought I'd look for some on this subject.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Yeah, but these things don't come out of the blue. You're very unlikely to be killed by a household member without the situation already having been abusive. And note that domestic killings are less likely to be with guns than murders on average. The real defense here is get out of any abusive situation pronto.

I've also known many, mostly conservative women who think I'm nuts for not carrying a gun. One of them is in her 70s, has many health problems and can barely walk after surviving a bad case of COVID. I can just imagine what would happen if someone broke into her home and she tried to use a gun on them. IF the police in Uvalde were too scared or disorganized to try stop a man who was using a gun on children, how in the world would the average citizen competently use a gun on the bad guy. Sure, it happens sometimes, but the reverse is more often the case. Just do your DD and read the link from Scientific American for more details and evidence.

This isn't a meaningful comparison. Uvalde was because the police were scared to storm a guarded door, not because they were unwilling to use a gun.

The civilian almost certainly shouldn't be considering storming a guarded door in the first place.

Btw, for those who don't know this, our idiot Republican governor recently did away with requirements for concealed carry permits. So, now anyone in Georgia can carry concealed without so much as a background check. I don't understand the gun fetish. It's insane, imo.
You guys, also? Trying to out-stupid Texas?? Constitutional carry is maga stupid.
 
Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.
That's abject nonsense.

Any weapon favours the person who is most ready and willing to use it.

If a mugger steps from the shadows and puts a gun to your face, your holstered gun doesn't help you one iota.

If he is prepared to actually use lethal force, nothing you can do will "equalise" that situation. Guns just make the first person to resort to violence the most likely winner in a conflict.

That swings the balance away from 'equal', because if the weapons are bare hands, there's always a higher prior probability that the initiator of violence will be the loser.
If somebody has the drop on you there's just about nothing you can do regardless of skill or weapons. You're a lot less likely to get hurt if the mugger has a gun than if he doesn't.

Mugger pulls gun to rob someone. Victim goes for his gun. Mugger panics and shoots to prevent himself being shot.
 
Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.
That's abject nonsense.

Any weapon favours the person who is most ready and willing to use it.

If a mugger steps from the shadows and puts a gun to your face, your holstered gun doesn't help you one iota.

If he is prepared to actually use lethal force, nothing you can do will "equalise" that situation. Guns just make the first person to resort to violence the most likely winner in a conflict.

That swings the balance away from 'equal', because if the weapons are bare hands, there's always a higher prior probability that the initiator of violence will be the loser.
If somebody has the drop on you there's just about nothing you can do regardless of skill or weapons. You're a lot less likely to get hurt if the mugger has a gun than if he doesn't.

Mugger pulls gun to rob someone. Victim goes for his gun. Mugger panics and shoots to prevent himself being shot.

There is also Mugger pulls gun to rob someone. Victim reaches for wallet to give to mugger. Mugger thinks Victim reached for a gun & shoots victim to prevent self from being shot. Our professional police make the same mistake, why not crooks? :sneaky:
 
Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.
That's abject nonsense.

Any weapon favours the person who is most ready and willing to use it.

If a mugger steps from the shadows and puts a gun to your face, your holstered gun doesn't help you one iota.

If he is prepared to actually use lethal force, nothing you can do will "equalise" that situation. Guns just make the first person to resort to violence the most likely winner in a conflict.

That swings the balance away from 'equal', because if the weapons are bare hands, there's always a higher prior probability that the initiator of violence will be the loser.
If somebody has the drop on you there's just about nothing you can do regardless of skill or weapons. You're a lot less likely to get hurt if the mugger has a gun than if he doesn't.
Sure. :rolleyesa: But you're a lot less likely to get killed if he doesn't. Wounds heal, death not so much.

And you're a lot less likely to be hurt if YOU don't have a weapon.

Whether or not anyone has the drop on anyone, the more lethal the weapons, the more the confrontation favours the protagonist quickest to escalate to violence.

Guns aren't an equaliser; They're a belligerence multiplyer.

Guns make violence a winning choice.

If you have one, it typically does NOTHING to help you, unless you use it first.

The person who throws the first punch likely has a small advantage in a fist fight.

The person who stabs first likely has a significant advantage in a knife fight.

The person who shoots first likely has a huge advantage in a gun fight.

Guns don't equalise the probability that two protagonists will win; They just increase the probability that they will fight, and increase the severity of the consequences.

Mexican stand-offs are a Hollywood fiction. They don't exist in reality; If two people are both pointing guns at each other, the winner will be whoever decides to shoot first. And the survivor likely has a great case for self defence, because the other guy was pointing a gun in his face.

Guns equalise nothing, outside bad movies and even worse TV shows.
 
For Texas, whose government believes in the 'good guy with gun' narrative, yes it is embarrassing.
Ya know, there are plenty of examples of armed citizens stopping bad guys. That there were cowards in Uvalde doesn’t change that.

What if neither of them had guns?
Knife beats empty hands. Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.
No, society and an easy camera are an equalizer.

Nothing, not a knife, not a gun, not even a small private army beats "can call the police and declare the evidence against you effectively and immediately".

Assuming the person in the video can be identified. Despite what's seen on a lot of police shows the government can't just take a video and get the identity of the people in it.
That's why I mentioned the taggant launchers obliquely.

"Run home, take five showers, and burn all the clothes you were wearing, and still leave a literal physical evidence trail" is pretty damn hard to dodge.
 
Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.
That's abject nonsense.

Any weapon favours the person who is most ready and willing to use it.

If a mugger steps from the shadows and puts a gun to your face, your holstered gun doesn't help you one iota.

If he is prepared to actually use lethal force, nothing you can do will "equalise" that situation. Guns just make the first person to resort to violence the most likely winner in a conflict.

That swings the balance away from 'equal', because if the weapons are bare hands, there's always a higher prior probability that the initiator of violence will be the loser.
If somebody has the drop on you there's just about nothing you can do regardless of skill or weapons. You're a lot less likely to get hurt if the mugger has a gun than if he doesn't.

Mugger pulls gun to rob someone. Victim goes for his gun. Mugger panics and shoots to prevent himself being shot.
This is exactly the point that Loren and others don't seem to get. If everyone is carrying a gun then there is going to be a lot more gun violence and death. It's really simple. How is it that so many people don't get it? It doesn't have to be muggers or home intruders. People in bars are going to start pulling guns over football games. I see lots of opposing fans getting into brawls at stadiums. Add guns to these situations and the bullets will be flying. As batshit crazy as is the NRA even they don't allow firearms into their venues.
 
Should government offer penis enlargement surgery to men who carry? Maybe they just need a bigger penis?
 
Back
Top Bottom