Guns and the art of victim blaming

[Worldtraveller]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

Arguing as gun advocates do (and are you throwing yourself in with that lot?) is like arguing that because you could be thrown clear and survive an automobile accident, you're safer not wearing a seat belt. For some strange reason, most people are willing to go with the statistics for seat belts, but not guns.

And now, gun deaths have surpassed auto deaths (as of 2016 IIRC). There's really no point arguing any more, though, because clearly, statistics won't change the minds of the gun fondlers.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, not seeing anything that invalidates my point that JH's argument is equally applicable to nukes, mortar launchers, weaponized drones, or any of a large number of other weapons

There are a number of qualities that make guns (and the rest of lethal area of effect and/or projectile weapons) inappropriate for street presence, but at the top are their high lethality, INSTANT lethality, and ease of lethality. In any public interaction, any of these things can result in a casualty where most any lesser weapon (with some notable exceptions) would merely result in a conflict-ending wound, or a wound whose lethality would require a substantive commitment to consummate.

In short, firearms enable us to go directly to kill, do not pass maim, do not allow victim to seek medical attention. This isn't a place we should be in, as a society.

 

[Gun Nut]

Yes they would if the "nukes" were less than 26 inches in total length, implementing a barrel no longer than 18 inches in length, used to propel a static projectile using a single charge of black or smokeless powder.

Right. They'd incinerate the user. That would be good.

.. and with the effective range of a projectile propelled by these means, so would the user. Strapping on a bomb vest would essentially be the same, when the range of fire is less than the range of destruction.

 

[Gun Nut]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

Arguing as gun advocates do (and are you throwing yourself in with that lot?) is like arguing that because you could be thrown clear and survive an automobile accident, you're safer not wearing a seat belt. For some strange reason, most people are willing to go with the statistics for seat belts, but not guns.

And now, gun deaths have surpassed auto deaths (as of 2016 IIRC). There's really no point arguing any more, though, because clearly, statistics won't change the minds of the gun fondlers.

Two issues with this..

1) Jason was being sarcastic... a parody of the left... I think. No one is saying what you said in your first paragraph.

2) statistics are fun to play with... I suspect the death by suicide numbers were conveniently added into your gun deaths figures... and possibly the car deaths numbers only included driver and passengers... and not pedestrians. I've seen that in arguments...
That's like only counting deaths of the shooter and not the people shot.

 

[Gun Nut]

Yeah, not seeing anything that invalidates my point that JH's argument is equally applicable to nukes, mortar launchers, weaponized drones, or any of a large number of other weapons

There are a number of qualities that make guns (and the rest of lethal area of effect and/or projectile weapons) inappropriate for street presence, but at the top are their high lethality, INSTANT lethality, and ease of lethality. In any public interaction, any of these things can result in a casualty where most any lesser weapon (with some notable exceptions) would merely result in a conflict-ending wound, or a wound whose lethality would require a substantive commitment to consummate.

In short, firearms enable us to go directly to kill, do not pass maim, do not allow victim to seek medical attention. This isn't a place we should be in, as a society.

a reasonable argument... I did extensive research in what is called "Less Lethal" ammunition for guns. They are unfortunately too unpredictable, in terms of threat stopping power. I saw a video from Russia where someone used a "wasp" (a gun that fires a less lethal round - 50 caliber, but extremely low powder weight) right in an attacker's face. The defender fired a total of 5 rounds directly into his face and it had no effect whatsoever. Finally, the 6th round got him in the eye and it deescalated the threat immediately... but not before the attacker disabled three others and injured the defender... all with his bare hands... had he had a knife, everyone would have been murdered and he would have evaded.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, not seeing anything that invalidates my point that JH's argument is equally applicable to nukes, mortar launchers, weaponized drones, or any of a large number of other weapons

There are a number of qualities that make guns (and the rest of lethal area of effect and/or projectile weapons) inappropriate for street presence, but at the top are their high lethality, INSTANT lethality, and ease of lethality. In any public interaction, any of these things can result in a casualty where most any lesser weapon (with some notable exceptions) would merely result in a conflict-ending wound, or a wound whose lethality would require a substantive commitment to consummate.

In short, firearms enable us to go directly to kill, do not pass maim, do not allow victim to seek medical attention. This isn't a place we should be in, as a society.

a reasonable argument... I did extensive research in what is called "Less Lethal" ammunition for guns. They are unfortunately too unpredictable, in terms of threat stopping power. I saw a video from Russia where someone used a "wasp" (a gun that fires a less lethal round - 50 caliber, but extremely low powder weight) right in an attacker's face. The defender fired a total of 5 rounds directly into his face and it had no effect whatsoever. Finally, the 6th round got him in the eye and it deescalated the threat immediately... but not before the attacker disabled three others and injured the defender... all with his bare hands... had he had a knife, everyone would have been murdered and he would have evaded.

Using a "less lethal" gun is an invitation to be on the wrong end of a "more lethal" gun. That's just stupid. Nobody is going to see that you're using a "less lethal" gun, put down their '19 and pull out a knife to make it a fair street fight... not even your Russian hero. But don't believe me, dude - ask anyone in law enforcement what THEY would do to someone using a "less lethal" gun. And remember - they operate within certain regulations (theoretically at least).

 

[Gun Nut]

Yeah, not seeing anything that invalidates my point that JH's argument is equally applicable to nukes, mortar launchers, weaponized drones, or any of a large number of other weapons

There are a number of qualities that make guns (and the rest of lethal area of effect and/or projectile weapons) inappropriate for street presence, but at the top are their high lethality, INSTANT lethality, and ease of lethality. In any public interaction, any of these things can result in a casualty where most any lesser weapon (with some notable exceptions) would merely result in a conflict-ending wound, or a wound whose lethality would require a substantive commitment to consummate.

In short, firearms enable us to go directly to kill, do not pass maim, do not allow victim to seek medical attention. This isn't a place we should be in, as a society.

a reasonable argument... I did extensive research in what is called "Less Lethal" ammunition for guns. They are unfortunately too unpredictable, in terms of threat stopping power. I saw a video from Russia where someone used a "wasp" (a gun that fires a less lethal round - 50 caliber, but extremely low powder weight) right in an attacker's face. The defender fired a total of 5 rounds directly into his face and it had no effect whatsoever. Finally, the 6th round got him in the eye and it deescalated the threat immediately... but not before the attacker disabled three others and injured the defender... all with his bare hands... had he had a knife, everyone would have been murdered and he would have evaded.

Using a "less lethal" gun is an invitation to be on the wrong end of a "more lethal" gun. That's just stupid. Nobody is going to see that you're using a "less lethal" gun, put down their '19 and pull out a knife to make it a fair street fight... not even your Russian hero. But don't believe me, dude - ask anyone in law enforcement what THEY would do to someone using a "less lethal" gun. And remember - they operate within certain regulations (theoretically at least).

guns for defenders are not display items, as they are for uniformed guards. If you see my gun out in public, its the last thing you see (and it's because you have threatened deadly force, and I believed you).

The idea of less deadly tools to stop a threat is to deliver immediate threat neutralization without causing death or serious permanent injury... not to play out your favorite scene in some cringe worthy movie where two people with guns point them at each other and size up their dicks.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Using a "less lethal" gun is an invitation to be on the wrong end of a "more lethal" gun. That's just stupid. Nobody is going to see that you're using a "less lethal" gun, put down their '19 and pull out a knife to make it a fair street fight... not even your Russian hero. But don't believe me, dude - ask anyone in law enforcement what THEY would do to someone using a "less lethal" gun. And remember - they operate within certain regulations (theoretically at least).

guns for defenders are not display items, as they are for uniformed guards. If you see my gun out in public, its the last thing you see (and it's because you have threatened deadly force, and I believed you).

Srsly? You envision yourself as a 'defender' - yet you also posit yourself as judge, jury, and executioner of anyone upon whom you pull your gun (based on your belief)?

Maybe keep the gun in the locker.

aa

 

[Gun Nut]

Using a "less lethal" gun is an invitation to be on the wrong end of a "more lethal" gun. That's just stupid. Nobody is going to see that you're using a "less lethal" gun, put down their '19 and pull out a knife to make it a fair street fight... not even your Russian hero. But don't believe me, dude - ask anyone in law enforcement what THEY would do to someone using a "less lethal" gun. And remember - they operate within certain regulations (theoretically at least).

guns for defenders are not display items, as they are for uniformed guards. If you see my gun out in public, its the last thing you see (and it's because you have threatened deadly force, and I believed you).

Srsly? You envision yourself as a 'defender' - yet you also posit yourself as judge, jury, and executioner of anyone upon whom you pull your gun (based on your belief)?

Maybe keep the gun in the locker.

aa

You seem very confused. Maybe the word "believe" triggered you, as an atheist... I don't know. Just because some punk says, "I'm going to kill you if you don't give me your money", I'm not necessarily going to believe them... they pull a knife or indicate they have a gun (but fail to ready it), then I will believe them. Guns are weapons of last resort. I've said that before, I think, in this conversation. Having some ability to defend yourself without a gun is highly recommended... but not if the attacker has a force multiplier, such as a knife or gun.
Yes, my "belief", or in more accurate terms, my "sense of situational awareness", is exactly what I rely upon to decide if my life is in danger. What do you rely upon to measure your degree of safety in some situation? Do you just Forest Gump yourself through life?
It is ironic that my message is responded to with the canard of "judge jury executioner", or "since when is the penalty Death for robbery" nonsense.
This response should seem far out of line for what you are responding to. And that, friends, is what got Trump elected. Great job. Very consistent. Keep throwing every argument to the weeds WAAAAY out in left field there.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Exactly. Because a gun isn't useful in every situation, it isn't useful in any situation.

Arguing as gun advocates do (and are you throwing yourself in with that lot?) is like arguing that because you could be thrown clear and survive an automobile accident, you're safer not wearing a seat belt. For some strange reason, most people are willing to go with the statistics for seat belts, but not guns.

I've always been an advocate of effective self defense. I do not see why you would be surprised at that. I want gay married couples to defend their marijuana from government drug enforcement agents using home 3D printed firearms paid for with bitcoin.

Since you brought seat belts into this, I advocate letting people choose. I oppose mandatory seatbelt laws but agree seatbelts are useful. That confuses people: "He said it is good but said not mandatory. If it is good it should be mandatory. He said not mandatory. That means he thinks it is not good. But he said it is good."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I wear a seatbelt even when I leave the car. And I always wear a condom, 24/7, just in case I fall off a railing, lose my pants and land on top of a nude woman suntanning.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm fine with people not wearing seatbelts just so long as their estates get a bill for the costs of scraping them off the road in the event of an accident. They shouldn't be asking other people to pay for their stupidity.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm fine with people not wearing seatbelts just so long as their estates get a bill for the costs of scraping them off the road in the event of an accident. They shouldn't be asking other people to pay for their stupidity.

And when it comes to firearms, it's not even a valid analogy to bring in. Seatbelts are unilateral, except for the whole "setting an example/precedent" element, which is a driver of culture, something the government has a vested interest in; when it comes to gun safety, the person at risk is not the person making the decision. This, unlike with seatbelts, is a clear example where the other party deserves a right to a seat at that discussion. Many of us reject that we should be subject to the unilateral decisions of others as to our own safety and exposure to dangerous weapons in public.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm fine with people not wearing seatbelts just so long as their estates get a bill for the costs of scraping them off the road in the event of an accident. They shouldn't be asking other people to pay for their stupidity.

And when it comes to firearms, it's not even a valid analogy to bring in. Seatbelts are unilateral, except for the whole "setting an example/precedent" element, which is a driver of culture, something the government has a vested interest in; when it comes to gun safety, the person at risk is not the person making the decision. This, unlike with seatbelts, is a clear example where the other party deserves a right to a seat at that discussion. Many of us reject that we should be subject to the unilateral decisions of others as to our own safety and exposure to dangerous weapons in public.

Ya, if you don't want to wear a seatbelt, the person who's harmed is you. Since you'd be a fucking idiot, nobody should really give the first particular shit if harm comes to you. With guns, however, it's other people who are being put at risk and therefore society as a whole is impacted by your decisions.

 

[Gun Nut]

This weekend, I injured myself with a gun. At the range. By myself. No one but me was hurt. It was just my pinky finger on my weak hand... and it was something very stupid.. I violated gun safety rule #3... be aware of what is behind your target. In my case, it was my pinky.
Funny this came up... I think (need to do some research here - this is by personal knowledge - not scientific) the vast majority of UNINTENTIONAL injuries from firearms injure the handler of the firearm, and not someone else.

Who agrees with me that the gun that wounded my finger (which has an 80 round magazine, and due to loopholes in the law, does not require a background check or age restriction to purchase or use) should be BANNED?
I think it should. This gun is too dangerous.

Read more about this gun here:

Show

It was a staple gun. I was mounting a target on the backstop, and while holding the target in place with my left hand, my pinky wrapped around to the backside of the cardboard backstop. With my right hand, I impaled my pinky as I stapled the target to the thin cardboard backstop that had my pinky behind it. I'll be fine.

 

[Elixir]

This weekend, I injured myself with a gun. At the range. By myself. No one but me was hurt. It was just my pinky finger on my weak hand... and it was something very stupid.. I violated gun safety rule #3... be aware of what is behind your target. In my case, it was my pinky.
Funny this came up... I think (need to do some research here - this is by personal knowledge - not scientific) the vast majority of UNINTENTIONAL injuries from firearms injure the handler of the firearm, and not someone else.

Who agrees with me that the gun that wounded my finger (which has an 80 round magazine, and due to loopholes in the law, does not require a background check or age restriction to purchase or use) should be BANNED?
I think it should. This gun is too dangerous.

Read more about this gun here:

Show

It was a staple gun. I was mounting a target on the backstop, and while holding the target in place with my left hand, my pinky wrapped around to the backside of the cardboard backstop. With my right hand, I impaled my pinky as I stapled the target to the thin cardboard backstop that had my pinky behind it. I'll be fine.

Depending on who you ask they may be more, or less, hazardous than other devices (paper clips etc.). But staplers don't staple people, people staple people. You'll just have to deal, painful though it may be.
Let's talk about the mag capacity of nail guns. Or something like that. Anything but actual, commonly used murder weapons.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

the vast majority of UNINTENTIONAL injuries from firearms injure the handler of the firearm, and not someone else.

But this still leaves a significant enough set of occurrences where someone other than the handler is harmed and that that moves it from a private issue about personal rights to a public issue about group rights.

 

[Patooka]

I wear a seatbelt even when I leave the car. And I always wear a condom, 24/7, just in case I fall off a railing, lose my pants and land on top of a nude woman suntanning.

Yes, because your cock has the ability to murder 30 people without you knowing. And even then when you reload it is still not your fault.

 

[Jarhyn]

This weekend, I injured myself with a gun. At the range. By myself. No one but me was hurt. It was just my pinky finger on my weak hand... and it was something very stupid.. I violated gun safety rule #3... be aware of what is behind your target. In my case, it was my pinky.
Funny this came up... I think (need to do some research here - this is by personal knowledge - not scientific) the vast majority of UNINTENTIONAL injuries from firearms injure the handler of the firearm, and not someone else.

Who agrees with me that the gun that wounded my finger (which has an 80 round magazine, and due to loopholes in the law, does not require a background check or age restriction to purchase or use) should be BANNED?
I think it should. This gun is too dangerous.

Read more about this gun here:

Show

It was a staple gun. I was mounting a target on the backstop, and while holding the target in place with my left hand, my pinky wrapped around to the backside of the cardboard backstop. With my right hand, I impaled my pinky as I stapled the target to the thin cardboard backstop that had my pinky behind it. I'll be fine.

You have drawn a false equivalency. Staples are not bullets, and outside of situations too bizarre or stupid to be important to the discussion, a staple will not kill or even significantly main most people. Bullets, on the other hand (or pinky...)...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm fine with people not wearing seatbelts just so long as their estates get a bill for the costs of scraping them off the road in the event of an accident. They shouldn't be asking other people to pay for their stupidity.

Actually, there's a good reason for seatbelts even then. Wearing your belt actually reduces the accident risk a bit. Under normal conditions it's irrelevant but when the shit is already hitting the fan it can matter. Consider a few months back when a Lyft driver approximated a PIT maneuver on me. Things in the car were tossed about, my glasses (which never fall off) somehow ended up underneath my seat. However, my belt triggered like it was supposed to, I remained in place and was able to stomp on the brake pedal. In this particular case the benefit was trivial as I came to rest against a retaining wall rather than in traffic, and there weren't other cars nearby anyway. However, had it played out a bit differently it could have saved me from a secondary accident.