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

[ZiprHead]

Should government offer penis enlargement surgery to men who carry? Maybe they just need a bigger penis?

Now you went and done it. Metaphor is now going to derail the thread about how your comment was misandrist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If you're properly trained you'll realize you shouldn't go for your gun. If you're not properly trained you shouldn't be carrying in the first place. The NRA and QOP can stick Constitutional Carry up it's ass--and preferably pull the trigger once it's there.

The fact remains that the victim is more likely to be uninjured if the mugger has a gun. They're much more likely to rely on intimidation alone, the guy with a wimpy weapon is more likely to use it to incapacitate before taking what they want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Which only works if the cops know who to check. And it does nothing to prevent the mugger from retaliating at the time. You should not resist a mugger unless either you're pretty sure they intend to harm you anyway, or if you're confident of your ability to successfully stop them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Guns and alcohol should never mix.

I disagree with laws that prohibit concealed carry in places that sell alcohol (plenty of patrons will not be purchasing it) but gun + anything over 0.02 BAC should be at least as serious as DUI. (Exception--if you got the gun in response to the threat. You hear someone breaking in and take the gun out of your safe, I don't care if you've had a drink.)

(And note the 0.02 is because of biological and testing limitations.)

 

[ZiprHead]

The fact remains that the victim is more likely to be uninjured if the mugger has a gun. They're much more likely to rely on intimidation alone, the guy with a wimpy weapon is more likely to use it to incapacitate before taking what they want.

Where in the world do you come up with this shit???

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe from here:

Now That's a Knife!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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?

I do remember a decade ago, three New York, confronted a suspicious man. He reachedfor his wallet, the cops panicked and shot him. 22 times. Police have shot people with phones in their hands.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The fact remains that the victim is more likely to be uninjured if the mugger has a gun. They're much more likely to rely on intimidation alone, the guy with a wimpy weapon is more likely to use it to incapacitate before taking what they want.

Where in the world do you come up with this shit???

There have been more than a few cases of victims obeying a robber's commands and then being shot for no reason at all other than a thrill killing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact remains that the victim is more likely to be uninjured if the mugger has a gun. They're much more likely to rely on intimidation alone, the guy with a wimpy weapon is more likely to use it to incapacitate before taking what they want.

Where in the world do you come up with this shit???

Just because you don't like the reality doesn't make it go away. Admittedly, that's old data, it's conceivable it's changed.

 

[bilby]

The fact remains that the victim is more likely to be uninjured if the mugger has a gun. They're much more likely to rely on intimidation alone, the guy with a wimpy weapon is more likely to use it to incapacitate before taking what they want.

Where in the world do you come up with this shit???

Just because you don't like the reality doesn't make it go away. Admittedly, that's old data, it's conceivable it's changed.

It's not data at all; It's an unsupported assertion by you, which you are trying to pass off as a valid placeholder for data you would like to assume we have all seen, and would like us to assume that you have seen.

That's not how data works.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The fact remains that the victim is more likely to be uninjured if the mugger has a gun. They're much more likely to rely on intimidation alone, the guy with a wimpy weapon is more likely to use it to incapacitate before taking what they want.

Where in the world do you come up with this shit???

Just because you don't like the reality doesn't make it go away. Admittedly, that's old data, it's conceivable it's changed.

Guns and folks who carried used to be a rarity except for those engaged in sport. That has changed and there are lots more guns around. The shock value of seeing a firearm just isn't what it used to be.

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

I do remember a decade ago, three New York, confronted a suspicious man. He reachedfor his wallet, the cops panicked and shot him. 22 times. Police have shot people with phones in their hands.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Amadou_Diallo And it was 41 shots.

Bruce Springsteen did a great song about the incident.

 

[Gun Nut]

Take a quick glance outside the USA for a minute. There's just such a utopia immediately to your north.

Different demographics. And to say that Canadians after how their own government treated them during Covid must be a joke.

Oleg fails to change the subject after "same but different" falls flat.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

‘Good gal with a gun’: Woman with pistol kills gunman at party

Charleston Police are releasing new details on a Wednesday night shooting investigation.

www.wowktv.com

What if neither of them had guns?

Then Oleg's "Birthright", as he calls it, would be sad that he now apparently lives in an Utopia and does not need guns, which is a paradox because also according to Oleg, there an be no Utopia without the freedom to play with guns.

 

[Oleg]

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.

‘Good gal with a gun’: Woman with pistol kills gunman at party

Charleston Police are releasing new details on a Wednesday night shooting investigation.

www.wowktv.com

What if neither of them had guns?

Then Oleg's "Birthright", as he calls it, would be sad that he now apparently lives in an Utopia and does not need guns, which is a paradox because also according to Oleg, there an be no Utopia without the freedom to play with guns.

I find this perspective interesting. You'll always find some people happy to live with less freedom. There are certainly those in North Korea who'd wonder why people need free speech, or to participate in government, or to decide their occupation. Or in Communist China happy with constant surveillance and social credit scores. There are people in Afganistan happy with the Taliban's return. Why do girls need to go to school, anyway? I'm not one of these people.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

‘Good gal with a gun’: Woman with pistol kills gunman at party

Charleston Police are releasing new details on a Wednesday night shooting investigation.

www.wowktv.com

What if neither of them had guns?

Then Oleg's "Birthright", as he calls it, would be sad that he now apparently lives in an Utopia and does not need guns, which is a paradox because also according to Oleg, there an be no Utopia without the freedom to play with guns.

I find this perspective interesting. You'll always find some people happy to live with less freedom. There are certainly those in North Korea who'd wonder why people need free speech, or to participate in government, or to decide their occupation? There are people in Afganistan happy with the Taliban's return. Why do girls need to go to school, anyway? I'm not one of these people.

You think the streets being awash with guns and gun crime skyrocketing is freedom???

 

[Oleg]

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.

‘Good gal with a gun’: Woman with pistol kills gunman at party

Charleston Police are releasing new details on a Wednesday night shooting investigation.

www.wowktv.com

What if neither of them had guns?

Then Oleg's "Birthright", as he calls it, would be sad that he now apparently lives in an Utopia and does not need guns, which is a paradox because also according to Oleg, there an be no Utopia without the freedom to play with guns.

I find this perspective interesting. You'll always find some people happy to live with less freedom. There are certainly those in North Korea who'd wonder why people need free speech, or to participate in government, or to decide their occupation? There are people in Afganistan happy with the Taliban's return. Why do girls need to go to school, anyway? I'm not one of these people.

You think the streets being awash with guns and gun crime skyrocketing is freedom???

The right to defend yourself against that, is. Laws don't stop criminals from getting guns. So why punish law abiding citizens? Hello? One of the most tyrannical, authoritarian, dick-moves is to disarm the people.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

‘Good gal with a gun’: Woman with pistol kills gunman at party

Charleston Police are releasing new details on a Wednesday night shooting investigation.

www.wowktv.com

What if neither of them had guns?

Then Oleg's "Birthright", as he calls it, would be sad that he now apparently lives in an Utopia and does not need guns, which is a paradox because also according to Oleg, there an be no Utopia without the freedom to play with guns.

I find this perspective interesting. You'll always find some people happy to live with less freedom. There are certainly those in North Korea who'd wonder why people need free speech, or to participate in government, or to decide their occupation? There are people in Afganistan happy with the Taliban's return. Why do girls need to go to school, anyway? I'm not one of these people.

You think the streets being awash with guns and gun crime skyrocketing is freedom???

The right to defend yourself against that, is. Laws don't stop criminals from getting guns. So why punish law abiding citizens? Hello? One of the most tyrannical, authoritarian, dick-moves is to disarm the people.

Tell that to Australia.

 

[bilby]

Guns are an equalizer, other portable weapons greatly favor the thug.

I hear a lot about guns being an equaliser. They are, but not in terms of the imbalance between criminals and their victims; They equalise the effectiveness of force between a big, strong, athletic person and a small, weak, unhealthy one.

The reason that the illogical jump is then made from "favours the weakling" to "favours the victim" is that many people have an image of criminals - particularly violent criminals - as big tough men who are easily able to overpower an unarmed victim.

This image may be true, in a world without the equalising effect of guns. Weaklings who attempted to become muggers would just end up bleeding in the gutter.

But the very equaliser that gun advocates claim will protect victims, also promotes weaklings to effective criminals.

The equalising effect of guns on violent crime is only real if we live in a world where criminality is a function of physical strength. We do not live in such a world.

For every weakling who gets mugged by a strong man, and thinks that if only he had been armed, things would have been different, there's a weakling who wouldn't have become a criminal, if not for the ability of his guns to prevent strong victims from effectively defending themselves.

Guns equalise the impact of initiating violence, but they don't equalise the power disparity between criminals and victims, because neither group had a prior tendency to be physically stronger (or weaker) than the other.

A gun enables a weakling to defeat a stronger person. But we have no reason to assume that the weakling is the victim, and not the criminal.

 

[marc]

equal maybe if you got two combatants entering an arena equally armed. Criminals tend to not announce their intention, and use surprise to get the victims in a position where they can't fight back before the person even realizes they are being robbed.

Doesn't matter if you got four high caliber pistols on you if they are all in holsters, and you got a 22 in your face.