β-SJL 2020 - the Dumb and Dumber ticket!

[bilby]

It is quite easy to kill people with a handgun which is why by far the most people in the US are killed by handguns, and very few are killed with rifles.


In tight quarters you will bring yourself in a position to fire it much easier with a handgun.

It isn't about "size" though. A "bigger" gun just punches through heavier armor. Most armor can't take a 5.56, the wimpy rounds of a classic M16 of AR-15.

It's also about range. Higher muzzle velocity of a riffle bullet means it will have a much longer effective range than a handgun bullet.

Conversely, we have Derec arguing, if we were to apply that analogy that the heavy rock is no different from the mace, so we mustn't make a distinction or require any social oversight of purpose-built weapons in public.

Both handguns and (scary looking) rifles are "purpose-built weapons" and not just naturally occurring objects. One is responsible for many more homicides, and yet the other receives all the attention.
Most murders are like this one.
Man convicted of 2017 double-murder at Lawrenceville hotel
Convicted felon uses a handgun to shoot two people dead. And yet β et al don't mention these types of shootings or anything about convicted felons and firearms. Why?

Well, you've certainly convinced me. Handguns should definitely be banned from civilian use, outside supervised and regulated firing ranges.

The entire concept of civilians having firearms for self defence is fucking moronic. Firearms are weapons of first use - they can only be offensive, or retaliatory, never defensive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It simplifies everything to just ban them all. There ya go. Solved the problem.

The simple answer to any long-standing problem is probably wrong.

 

[bilby]

It simplifies everything to just ban them all. There ya go. Solved the problem.

The simple answer to any long-standing problem is probably wrong.

Sweet. I have been looking for a simple way to determine the validity of a solution for AGES.

Thanks!











Oh, wait.

Shit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know very little about guns, my questions probably seem rudimentary to a gun enthusiast. I'm sure you've heard these questions before...

I am guessing most get them because they look badass.

Real thugs use handguns to do their murderin'.

Exactly. This is why the whole assault rifle bit isn't relevant--such weapons are rarely used by criminals. Criminals want small guns!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The entire concept of civilians having firearms for self defence is fucking moronic. Firearms are weapons of first use - they can only be offensive, or retaliatory, never defensive.

How do you reconcile this with a few hundred dead bad guys every year here?

 

[Ford]

I know very little about guns, my questions probably seem rudimentary to a gun enthusiast. I'm sure you've heard these questions before...

What is the purpose of having military style weapons? Is it for defense? Aren't you going to need something bigger because your attacker is very likely to have a military style weapon too?

As has been mentioned, "because they look badass."

It's marketing. When I was a kid, my dad was an NRA member (back in the 70s when they were still focused on sporting and safety). We got the NRA magazines delivered every month. There were ads for shotguns, hunting rifles, and a few pistols. The "assault style rifles" were relegated to the likes of "Soldier of Fortune" and other fringe publications.

There was also a column called "Armed Citizen" which spent at most 2 pages on brief blurbs of gun owners defending themselves against criminals.

Now? Pick a firearms retailer in your area. Go to their website. You actually have to dig down to find traditional hunting rifles or shotguns. It's all "military style" weapons, all the time. I actually did advertising for a local dealer here in Arizona, and that was the bulk of their business. The weapons that "look badass" outsell everything else by a long shot.

Do you need a military style weapon to take down a deer? Does it help to have a high-capacity of ammunition and the ability to convert it to nearly automatic with a few mods? No. It just looks cool, and that's the selling point.

 

[bilby]

The entire concept of civilians having firearms for self defence is fucking moronic. Firearms are weapons of first use - they can only be offensive, or retaliatory, never defensive.

How do you reconcile this with a few hundred dead bad guys every year here?

Mate, as we have discussed ad nauseum, I don't even accept that the epithet "bad guys" describes a real class of persons.

But leaving that childish and simplistic mode of thinking aside, it's bleeding obvious that the existence of offensive and retaliatory weapons in the hands of civilians will lead to deaths, and that some of the dead will be people who were engaged in crime.

How many do you guesstimate were engaged in CAPITAL crime? Because applying the death penalty for housebreaking is an example of offensive use of weapons. That your fucked up country allows civilians to kill in the heat of the moment persons engaged in minor crimes does NOT render it morally acceptable; And my opinion is that the death penalty is itself unacceptable morally, and that deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers are themselves completely unacceptable in a society that wants to pretend to be civilised.

Your starting assumptions on this topic are so far removed from mine (and from basic moral decency) that it's practically impossible for us to converse at all.

How the fuck can I explain what's wrong with killing a person for trespassing, to someone who thinks it's perfectly OK?

How much more difficult is it to explain that guns are never weapons of defence?

But fuck it. I'll try:

Forget 'good guys' and 'bad guys'; If two people are in conflict, and both are armed with handguns, how does the one who is fired upon defend himself? Does he shoot the bullet out of the air?

If two armed men are facing off, what is their best strategy? To fire, or to not fire? Given that firing second is probably fatal, and firing first is probably not?

If a criminal has selected an armed man as his victim, who has the initiative? What benefit accrues to the criminal in waiting for his victim to draw and ready a firearm, rather than just shooting him immediately? How does starting to draw a gun help the victim defend himself?

Reality is nothing like the movies. A "Mexican standoff" is an impossible and unstable situation. The dead guy will be whoever hesitates to kill - which will mostly (but not always) NOT be the criminal, in an encounter with only one criminal.

All of this is completely consistent with lots of dead "bad guys" for a given definition of "bad guys". And a somewhat larger number of dead "good guys" - with the disproportional distribution increasing as your definition of "bad guy" narrows.

If your definition of "bad guy" is broad enough, you might even reach close to parity in deaths. But only by abandoning your humanity to the point where a shoplifter or jaywalker deserves summary execution.

Judge Dredd was meant to be a parody, not an example towards which to aspire.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The entire concept of civilians having firearms for self defence is fucking moronic. Firearms are weapons of first use - they can only be offensive, or retaliatory, never defensive.

How do you reconcile this with a few hundred dead bad guys every year here?

Mate, as we have discussed ad nauseum, I don't even accept that the epithet "bad guys" describes a real class of persons.

But leaving that childish and simplistic mode of thinking aside, it's bleeding obvious that the existence of offensive and retaliatory weapons in the hands of civilians will lead to deaths, and that some of the dead will be people who were engaged in crime.

How many do you guesstimate were engaged in CAPITAL crime? Because applying the death penalty for housebreaking is an example of offensive use of weapons. That your fucked up country allows civilians to kill in the heat of the moment persons engaged in minor crimes does NOT render it morally acceptable; And my opinion is that the death penalty is itself unacceptable morally, and that deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers are themselves completely unacceptable in a society that wants to pretend to be civilised.

Your starting assumptions on this topic are so far removed from mine (and from basic moral decency) that it's practically impossible for us to converse at all.

How the fuck can I explain what's wrong with killing a person for trespassing, to someone who thinks it's perfectly OK?

How much more difficult is it to explain that guns are never weapons of defence?

But fuck it. I'll try:

Forget 'good guys' and 'bad guys'; If two people are in conflict, and both are armed with handguns, how does the one who is fired upon defend himself? Does he shoot the bullet out of the air?

If two armed men are facing off, what is their best strategy? To fire, or to not fire? Given that firing second is probably fatal, and firing first is probably not?

If a criminal has selected an armed man as his victim, who has the initiative? What benefit accrues to the criminal in waiting for his victim to draw and ready a firearm, rather than just shooting him immediately? How does starting to draw a gun help the victim defend himself?

Reality is nothing like the movies. A "Mexican standoff" is an impossible and unstable situation. The dead guy will be whoever hesitates to kill - which will mostly (but not always) NOT be the criminal, in an encounter with only one criminal.

All of this is completely consistent with lots of dead "bad guys" for a given definition of "bad guys". And a somewhat larger number of dead "good guys" - with the disproportional distribution increasing as your definition of "bad guy" narrows.

If your definition of "bad guy" is broad enough, you might even reach close to parity in deaths. But only by abandoning your humanity to the point where a shoplifter or jaywalker deserves summary execution.

Judge Dredd was meant to be a parody, not an example towards which to aspire.

Whew, can't agree with you here. If someone breaks into your house, you have no idea what they are doing. Better to put them down and not take a chance. I'm not going to risk my kids lives hoping that they are only breaking in to just trespass.

 

[bilby]

Mate, as we have discussed ad nauseum, I don't even accept that the epithet "bad guys" describes a real class of persons.

But leaving that childish and simplistic mode of thinking aside, it's bleeding obvious that the existence of offensive and retaliatory weapons in the hands of civilians will lead to deaths, and that some of the dead will be people who were engaged in crime.

How many do you guesstimate were engaged in CAPITAL crime? Because applying the death penalty for housebreaking is an example of offensive use of weapons. That your fucked up country allows civilians to kill in the heat of the moment persons engaged in minor crimes does NOT render it morally acceptable; And my opinion is that the death penalty is itself unacceptable morally, and that deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers are themselves completely unacceptable in a society that wants to pretend to be civilised.

Your starting assumptions on this topic are so far removed from mine (and from basic moral decency) that it's practically impossible for us to converse at all.

How the fuck can I explain what's wrong with killing a person for trespassing, to someone who thinks it's perfectly OK?

How much more difficult is it to explain that guns are never weapons of defence?

But fuck it. I'll try:

Forget 'good guys' and 'bad guys'; If two people are in conflict, and both are armed with handguns, how does the one who is fired upon defend himself? Does he shoot the bullet out of the air?

If two armed men are facing off, what is their best strategy? To fire, or to not fire? Given that firing second is probably fatal, and firing first is probably not?

If a criminal has selected an armed man as his victim, who has the initiative? What benefit accrues to the criminal in waiting for his victim to draw and ready a firearm, rather than just shooting him immediately? How does starting to draw a gun help the victim defend himself?

Reality is nothing like the movies. A "Mexican standoff" is an impossible and unstable situation. The dead guy will be whoever hesitates to kill - which will mostly (but not always) NOT be the criminal, in an encounter with only one criminal.

All of this is completely consistent with lots of dead "bad guys" for a given definition of "bad guys". And a somewhat larger number of dead "good guys" - with the disproportional distribution increasing as your definition of "bad guy" narrows.

If your definition of "bad guy" is broad enough, you might even reach close to parity in deaths. But only by abandoning your humanity to the point where a shoplifter or jaywalker deserves summary execution.

Judge Dredd was meant to be a parody, not an example towards which to aspire.

Whew, can't agree with you here. If someone breaks into your house, you have no idea what they are doing. Better to put them down and not take a chance. I'm not going to risk my kids lives hoping that they are only breaking in to just trespass.

You think that killing someone isn't just a little disproportionate, because your paranoid fantasies that they might be intent on killing your children justifies their deaths?

Are your children in the habit of making mortal enemies?

How many people have you killed so far?

 

[ZiprHead]

Mate, as we have discussed ad nauseum, I don't even accept that the epithet "bad guys" describes a real class of persons.

But leaving that childish and simplistic mode of thinking aside, it's bleeding obvious that the existence of offensive and retaliatory weapons in the hands of civilians will lead to deaths, and that some of the dead will be people who were engaged in crime.

How many do you guesstimate were engaged in CAPITAL crime? Because applying the death penalty for housebreaking is an example of offensive use of weapons. That your fucked up country allows civilians to kill in the heat of the moment persons engaged in minor crimes does NOT render it morally acceptable; And my opinion is that the death penalty is itself unacceptable morally, and that deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers are themselves completely unacceptable in a society that wants to pretend to be civilised.

Your starting assumptions on this topic are so far removed from mine (and from basic moral decency) that it's practically impossible for us to converse at all.

How the fuck can I explain what's wrong with killing a person for trespassing, to someone who thinks it's perfectly OK?

How much more difficult is it to explain that guns are never weapons of defence?

But fuck it. I'll try:

Forget 'good guys' and 'bad guys'; If two people are in conflict, and both are armed with handguns, how does the one who is fired upon defend himself? Does he shoot the bullet out of the air?

If two armed men are facing off, what is their best strategy? To fire, or to not fire? Given that firing second is probably fatal, and firing first is probably not?

If a criminal has selected an armed man as his victim, who has the initiative? What benefit accrues to the criminal in waiting for his victim to draw and ready a firearm, rather than just shooting him immediately? How does starting to draw a gun help the victim defend himself?

Reality is nothing like the movies. A "Mexican standoff" is an impossible and unstable situation. The dead guy will be whoever hesitates to kill - which will mostly (but not always) NOT be the criminal, in an encounter with only one criminal.

All of this is completely consistent with lots of dead "bad guys" for a given definition of "bad guys". And a somewhat larger number of dead "good guys" - with the disproportional distribution increasing as your definition of "bad guy" narrows.

If your definition of "bad guy" is broad enough, you might even reach close to parity in deaths. But only by abandoning your humanity to the point where a shoplifter or jaywalker deserves summary execution.

Judge Dredd was meant to be a parody, not an example towards which to aspire.

Whew, can't agree with you here. If someone breaks into your house, you have no idea what they are doing. Better to put them down and not take a chance. I'm not going to risk my kids lives hoping that they are only breaking in to just trespass.

Like this woman did.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

It is quite easy to kill people with a handgun which is why by far the most people in the US are killed by handguns, and very few are killed with rifles.


In tight quarters you will bring yourself in a position to fire it much easier with a handgun.


It's also about range. Higher muzzle velocity of a riffle bullet means it will have a much longer effective range than a handgun bullet.



Both handguns and (scary looking) rifles are "purpose-built weapons" and not just naturally occurring objects. One is responsible for many more homicides, and yet the other receives all the attention.
Most murders are like this one.
Man convicted of 2017 double-murder at Lawrenceville hotel
Convicted felon uses a handgun to shoot two people dead. And yet β et al don't mention these types of shootings or anything about convicted felons and firearms. Why?

Well, you've certainly convinced me. Handguns should definitely be banned from civilian use, outside supervised and regulated firing ranges.

The entire concept of civilians having firearms for self defence is fucking moronic. Firearms are weapons of first use - they can only be offensive, or retaliatory, never defensive.

In american society the gun is a fetish symbol for the freedoms, freedom from state surveillance and economic security we all sat on our asses over the past half century and obediently watched taken from us by our ruling industrial class.

 

[Derec]

You think that killing someone isn't just a little disproportionate, because your paranoid fantasies that they might be intent on killing your children justifies their deaths?

Using deadly force against a home invader is not "disproportionate" at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The entire concept of civilians having firearms for self defence is fucking moronic. Firearms are weapons of first use - they can only be offensive, or retaliatory, never defensive.

How do you reconcile this with a few hundred dead bad guys every year here?

Mate, as we have discussed ad nauseum, I don't even accept that the epithet "bad guys" describes a real class of persons.

But leaving that childish and simplistic mode of thinking aside, it's bleeding obvious that the existence of offensive and retaliatory weapons in the hands of civilians will lead to deaths, and that some of the dead will be people who were engaged in crime.

How many do you guesstimate were engaged in CAPITAL crime? Because applying the death penalty for housebreaking is an example of offensive use of weapons. That your fucked up country allows civilians to kill in the heat of the moment persons engaged in minor crimes does NOT render it morally acceptable; And my opinion is that the death penalty is itself unacceptable morally, and that deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers are themselves completely unacceptable in a society that wants to pretend to be civilised.

We have no way of knowing how many were engaged in serious crime--we don't require a defender figure out if an intruder intends something serious because by the time they figure that out it's likely too late.

However, note that most shootings don't result in death--a few hundred dead criminals means thousands were shot and probably tens of thousands run off without a shot being fired.

And note that it's acceptable to shoot a rapist. And burglars who stumble upon a woman alone sometimes rape even if that wasn't their original plan. I would be surprised if the number dead wasn't less than the number of violent crimes stopped.

How the fuck can I explain what's wrong with killing a person for trespassing, to someone who thinks it's perfectly OK?

I don't think anyone thinks shooting someone for trespassing is ok.

How much more difficult is it to explain that guns are never weapons of defence?

But fuck it. I'll try:

Forget 'good guys' and 'bad guys'; If two people are in conflict, and both are armed with handguns, how does the one who is fired upon defend himself? Does he shoot the bullet out of the air?

The defender usually has the advantage of being able to choose a position to defend. If the intruder stays away, they're fine. If they enter they likely get perforated.

If a criminal has selected an armed man as his victim, who has the initiative? What benefit accrues to the criminal in waiting for his victim to draw and ready a firearm, rather than just shooting him immediately? How does starting to draw a gun help the victim defend himself?

If you're going to put it in D&D terms--in a home defense situation the defender usually gets a surprise round. And they usually get a readied action to shoot the person coming through a doorway or other constricting feature.

And note that in many cases the attacker isn't armed with a gun. It's perfectly acceptable to meet a knife with a gun.

Reality is nothing like the movies. A "Mexican standoff" is an impossible and unstable situation. The dead guy will be whoever hesitates to kill - which will mostly (but not always) NOT be the criminal, in an encounter with only one criminal.

You're the one suffering from the movies, thinking it's even a reasonable model of a defense situation. For some real world stuff try: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw (Content warning: A fair number of actual deaths are shown.)
Note that it doesn't have much home defense stuff because he's showing and commenting on actual situations that were caught on camera.

 

[Derec]

Mate, as we have discussed ad nauseum, I don't even accept that the epithet "bad guys" describes a real class of persons.

Why not? There are bad people in this world. Like these guys.
‘Eeny meeny miny mo’: Detective says 2 men shot, killed college student at random

An Atlanta police detective said Friday that two murder and rape suspects appeared to choose someone to kill at random during a home invasion last month.[..] Liger, along with a woman and her boyfriend, were tortured by [Laquan] Goss and his co-defendant, 18-year-old Roy Hill, during the Aug. 21 home invasion at the Vista Adams Apartments, Detective Michael Young testified in court.
[...]
The other woman was allegedly raped before she and her boyfriend were forced to their knees with their heads down in an execution-style position, Channel 2 reported. At that point, the two suspects are accused of making a game out of their suffering.
“They pulled the mattress over (the victims’) heads and played a game: Eeny meeny miny mo, someone has got to go,” Young said in court, adding that Goss was the man who spoke the nursery rhyme.
Young said Goss then asked Hill, “Didn’t you say you wanted to kill somebody?” Hill allegedly replied “no,” but Goss is accused of saying, “Somebody has got to go,” before shooting Liger in the head.

Are you seriously going to tell me that these are not bad guys? Or that the world would not have been a lot better off had one of the victims had a gun and popped a cap in their asses?

But leaving that childish and simplistic mode of thinking aside, it's bleeding obvious that the existence of offensive and retaliatory weapons in the hands of civilians will lead to deaths, and that some of the dead will be people who were engaged in crime.

It's not "childish and simplistic" to recognize that there are bad people committing serious crimes against people. While stark "black and white" thinking is overly simplistic, so is thinking that everybody is the same shade of grey in the end. Being able to see nuance means that you should not be blind to big difference in luminance either.

How many do you guesstimate were engaged in CAPITAL crime?

Capital crime is about adjudication once the perp is in custody and does not preset an immediate danger. It is very different from actions to stop an immediate threat. Like somebody breaking into your house.

Because applying the death penalty for housebreaking is an example of offensive use of weapons.

Wrong. It's defensive. You are defending yourself against a home invader.

That your fucked up country allows civilians to kill in the heat of the moment persons engaged in minor crimes

Burglary and home invasion are NOT minor crimes. A minor crime is, you know, petty theft or something. These are felonies.

does NOT render it morally acceptable; And my opinion is that the death penalty is itself unacceptable morally, and that deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers are themselves completely unacceptable in a society that wants to pretend to be civilised.

I would agree with you on death penalty. However, as I said before, there is a HUGE difference between punishing a perpetrator who is in custody and does not pose continued danger, and defending yourself against somebody who is.

How the fuck can I explain what's wrong with killing a person for trespassing, to someone who thinks it's perfectly OK?

Home invasion != traspassing.

How much more difficult is it to explain that guns are never weapons of defence?

That's bullshit. Take this case for example, about Florida Man going to Virginia with murderous intent.
Florida man paralyzed after alleged murder plot to kill wife backfires

When he arrived in the area, Herbig allegedly put on a wig to disguise himself, then went inside his wife’s home with a gun and wrench.
He struck his stepdaughter over the head with the wrench while she was letting her dog out in the backyard, news station WTKR reported. The man then forced entry into the home to assault her mother with the same weapon.
But the stepdaughter thwarted the attack when she grabbed a gun and shot him, severing his spine, officials said.

Not defensive? You sure about that?

Forget 'good guys' and 'bad guys'; If two people are in conflict, and both are armed with handguns, how does the one who is fired upon defend himself? Does he shoot the bullet out of the air?

People miss. Especially punks like these in an Atlanta suburb.
Homeowner shoots, kills 3 teens wearing masks; 1 had a gun, police say

Deputies said a homeowner shot three teens who were wearing masks. Channel 2's Aaron Diamant learned two of the teens were brothers, 15 and 16 years old. A third was a 15-year-old boy.The shooting happened around 4 a.m. at a house off White Oak Court in Conyers. One of the boys died at the scene. The other two later died at the hospital. Investigators said one of the teens pulled out a gun and fired at the neighbors before the homeowner returned fire.
[...]
“It was five shots and then it sounded like a handgun. Then I heard somebody have an assault rifle. And it was a slew of shots that came out,” neighbor Carlos Watson said.
Deputies say they still don’t know who owned the two guns they found.
Investigators say three people were at the home, including a woman, when the shooting happened.
The homeowner who shot the masked intruder is a man. Neighbors say he’s a truck driver who owns a semi-automatic rifle and is highly protective of his mother.

Note that the intended victim in this case apparently had a so-called "assault weapon" with which to defend himself. The perp shot first but missed and all three intended robbers ended up dead. I bet they were thinking something like "oh shit" when he pulled it out and started firing...

But there have also been plenty of cases of people mugged at gunpoint who surprised the mugger by pulling their own gun and shooting the perp(s) before they could get a shot off. Risky tactic, for sure, but often it works.

If a criminal has selected an armed man as his victim, who has the initiative? What benefit accrues to the criminal in waiting for his victim to draw and ready a firearm, rather than just shooting him immediately? How does starting to draw a gun help the victim defend himself?

A lot of the perps expect the victim to be intimidated and do not expect him or her to draw their own gun. The victim shoots before the perps comprehend what is going on. As I said, risky tactic, but so is holding people at gunpoint.
Police: Attempted robber shot multiple times by would-be victim in self defense at Bell Road ATM
Armed Robbery Suspect Shot Dead by Gun-carrying Victim
MetroPCS Employee Fatally Shoots Would-Be Robber, Philadelphia Police Say
And that's just few of the cases. And yes, I have zero trouble calling these robbers the bad guys.

Reality is nothing like the movies. A "Mexican standoff" is an impossible and unstable situation. The dead guy will be whoever hesitates to kill - which will mostly (but not always) NOT be the criminal, in an encounter with only one criminal.

You are right that if a perp intends to murder somebody they will not hesitate. The issue (which also leads to Mexican standoffs, at least in movies) is that murder is not the initial intention, intimidation is. And yes, a Mexican standoff is inherently unstable, which is why it is a favorite trope for movie makers to add tension.

And resolve it quickly.

 

[bilby]

Mate, as we have discussed ad nauseum, I don't even accept that the epithet "bad guys" describes a real class of persons.

But leaving that childish and simplistic mode of thinking aside, it's bleeding obvious that the existence of offensive and retaliatory weapons in the hands of civilians will lead to deaths, and that some of the dead will be people who were engaged in crime.

How many do you guesstimate were engaged in CAPITAL crime? Because applying the death penalty for housebreaking is an example of offensive use of weapons. That your fucked up country allows civilians to kill in the heat of the moment persons engaged in minor crimes does NOT render it morally acceptable; And my opinion is that the death penalty is itself unacceptable morally, and that deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers are themselves completely unacceptable in a society that wants to pretend to be civilised.

We have no way of knowing how many were engaged in serious crime--we don't require a defender figure out if an intruder intends something serious because by the time they figure that out it's likely too late.

However, note that most shootings don't result in death--a few hundred dead criminals means thousands were shot and probably tens of thousands run off without a shot being fired.

And note that it's acceptable to shoot a rapist. And burglars who stumble upon a woman alone sometimes rape even if that wasn't their original plan. I would be surprised if the number dead wasn't less than the number of violent crimes stopped.

How the fuck can I explain what's wrong with killing a person for trespassing, to someone who thinks it's perfectly OK?

I don't think anyone thinks shooting someone for trespassing is ok.

How much more difficult is it to explain that guns are never weapons of defence?

But fuck it. I'll try:

Forget 'good guys' and 'bad guys'; If two people are in conflict, and both are armed with handguns, how does the one who is fired upon defend himself? Does he shoot the bullet out of the air?

The defender usually has the advantage of being able to choose a position to defend. If the intruder stays away, they're fine. If they enter they likely get perforated.

If a criminal has selected an armed man as his victim, who has the initiative? What benefit accrues to the criminal in waiting for his victim to draw and ready a firearm, rather than just shooting him immediately? How does starting to draw a gun help the victim defend himself?

If you're going to put it in D&D terms--in a home defense situation the defender usually gets a surprise round. And they usually get a readied action to shoot the person coming through a doorway or other constricting feature.

And note that in many cases the attacker isn't armed with a gun. It's perfectly acceptable to meet a knife with a gun.

Reality is nothing like the movies. A "Mexican standoff" is an impossible and unstable situation. The dead guy will be whoever hesitates to kill - which will mostly (but not always) NOT be the criminal, in an encounter with only one criminal.

You're the one suffering from the movies, thinking it's even a reasonable model of a defense situation. For some real world stuff try: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw (Content warning: A fair number of actual deaths are shown.)
Note that it doesn't have much home defense stuff because he's showing and commenting on actual situations that were caught on camera.

You really need to stop saying "note that...", when what you mean is "in my opinion...".

Your opinions are not facts. But you seem to think that thay are laws of nature.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have no way of knowing how many were engaged in serious crime--we don't require a defender figure out if an intruder intends something serious because by the time they figure that out it's likely too late.

However, note that most shootings don't result in death--a few hundred dead criminals means thousands were shot and probably tens of thousands run off without a shot being fired.

And note that it's acceptable to shoot a rapist. And burglars who stumble upon a woman alone sometimes rape even if that wasn't their original plan. I would be surprised if the number dead wasn't less than the number of violent crimes stopped.



I don't think anyone thinks shooting someone for trespassing is ok.

How much more difficult is it to explain that guns are never weapons of defence?

But fuck it. I'll try:

Forget 'good guys' and 'bad guys'; If two people are in conflict, and both are armed with handguns, how does the one who is fired upon defend himself? Does he shoot the bullet out of the air?

The defender usually has the advantage of being able to choose a position to defend. If the intruder stays away, they're fine. If they enter they likely get perforated.

If a criminal has selected an armed man as his victim, who has the initiative? What benefit accrues to the criminal in waiting for his victim to draw and ready a firearm, rather than just shooting him immediately? How does starting to draw a gun help the victim defend himself?

If you're going to put it in D&D terms--in a home defense situation the defender usually gets a surprise round. And they usually get a readied action to shoot the person coming through a doorway or other constricting feature.

And note that in many cases the attacker isn't armed with a gun. It's perfectly acceptable to meet a knife with a gun.

Reality is nothing like the movies. A "Mexican standoff" is an impossible and unstable situation. The dead guy will be whoever hesitates to kill - which will mostly (but not always) NOT be the criminal, in an encounter with only one criminal.

You're the one suffering from the movies, thinking it's even a reasonable model of a defense situation. For some real world stuff try: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw (Content warning: A fair number of actual deaths are shown.)
Note that it doesn't have much home defense stuff because he's showing and commenting on actual situations that were caught on camera.

You really need to stop saying "note that...", when what you mean is "in my opinion...".

Your opinions are not facts. But you seem to think that thay are laws of nature.

So you're not going to actually address anything? You're conceding?

 

[bilby]

We have no way of knowing how many were engaged in serious crime--we don't require a defender figure out if an intruder intends something serious because by the time they figure that out it's likely too late.

However, note that most shootings don't result in death--a few hundred dead criminals means thousands were shot and probably tens of thousands run off without a shot being fired.

And note that it's acceptable to shoot a rapist. And burglars who stumble upon a woman alone sometimes rape even if that wasn't their original plan. I would be surprised if the number dead wasn't less than the number of violent crimes stopped.



I don't think anyone thinks shooting someone for trespassing is ok.



The defender usually has the advantage of being able to choose a position to defend. If the intruder stays away, they're fine. If they enter they likely get perforated.

If a criminal has selected an armed man as his victim, who has the initiative? What benefit accrues to the criminal in waiting for his victim to draw and ready a firearm, rather than just shooting him immediately? How does starting to draw a gun help the victim defend himself?

If you're going to put it in D&D terms--in a home defense situation the defender usually gets a surprise round. And they usually get a readied action to shoot the person coming through a doorway or other constricting feature.

And note that in many cases the attacker isn't armed with a gun. It's perfectly acceptable to meet a knife with a gun.

Reality is nothing like the movies. A "Mexican standoff" is an impossible and unstable situation. The dead guy will be whoever hesitates to kill - which will mostly (but not always) NOT be the criminal, in an encounter with only one criminal.

You're the one suffering from the movies, thinking it's even a reasonable model of a defense situation. For some real world stuff try: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw (Content warning: A fair number of actual deaths are shown.)
Note that it doesn't have much home defense stuff because he's showing and commenting on actual situations that were caught on camera.

You really need to stop saying "note that...", when what you mean is "in my opinion...".

Your opinions are not facts. But you seem to think that thay are laws of nature.

So you're not going to actually address anything? You're conceding?

I already have addressed everything substantial here. I am not conceding, I am giving up trying to convince you of your errors. There's only so many times that it's worth going around in the same old boring circles.

If you're not bored yet, you'll have to find someone else to play with - Goading me to continue isn't going to work, because I no longer care that you are wrong.

 

[Gun Nut]

It is quite easy to kill people with a handgun which is why by far the most people in the US are killed by handguns, and very few are killed with rifles.


In tight quarters you will bring yourself in a position to fire it much easier with a handgun.


It's also about range. Higher muzzle velocity of a riffle bullet means it will have a much longer effective range than a handgun bullet.



Both handguns and (scary looking) rifles are "purpose-built weapons" and not just naturally occurring objects. One is responsible for many more homicides, and yet the other receives all the attention.
Most murders are like this one.
Man convicted of 2017 double-murder at Lawrenceville hotel
Convicted felon uses a handgun to shoot two people dead. And yet β et al don't mention these types of shootings or anything about convicted felons and firearms. Why?

Well, you've certainly convinced me. Handguns should definitely be banned from civilian use, outside supervised and regulated firing ranges.

The entire concept of civilians having firearms for self defence is fucking moronic. Firearms are weapons of first use - they can only be offensive, or retaliatory, never defensive.

In american society the gun is a fetish symbol for the freedoms, freedom from state surveillance and economic security we all sat on our asses over the past half century and obediently watched taken from us by our ruling industrial class.

I think you are confusing the Automobile for a the Gun. Totally understandable, when they are both killing so many innocent people. Cars are the "fetich symbol" of American Freedom (TM).