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

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Guess you should walk around with your pistols in your hands then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Skyrocketing? That's a GOP talking point with little connection to reality.

We did see a crime spike--but the culprit was BLM, not guns. In cities with big BLM protests the cops became less proactive and crime shot up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yeah, Australia where a pre-existing trend is treated as evidence their gun measures worked. Nope, they might have reduced mass shootings but they didn't do much of anything to the murder rate. There's a blip and a return to the normal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Criminals tend to be young and male. And you're thinking of them in isolation--the reality is the law of the street is settled with force. A criminal who can't use force is going to be at the bottom of the pecking order. Of course criminals will be on average stronger than the average person.

Note that white collar crime is different--white collar criminals don't function in the world of the street and they're often older. They typically don't have much in the way of combat capability. You're not going to be mugged by a white collar criminal, though.

 

[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.

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.

agree. Like how you are (prolly) perfectly ok with giving up your privacy (and your shoes) to get on an airplane... or how you have to pay a fee and get a license to "travel" on streets (which are now the only way one CAN "travel" -there is no wilderness to ride your hose through)... And I am very much disappointed at my lack of freedom to just shoot any asshole that I feel does not deserve to live.. I mean, my judgement as to who should live or die should be enough for anyone... it is for ME, which is all that I should ever need to concern myself with, RIGHT?
I mean.. any law that is enforced, that makes or prevents me from doing anything... anything at all... is an inhibition of my "GOD GIVEN FREEDOM!!!!111!11one!!!"

 

[marc]

We did see a crime spike--but the culprit was BLM, not guns. In cities with big BLM protests the cops became less proactive and crime shot up.

Sooo, BLM protests police brutality and criminal activity by police. The police throw a hissy fit and refuse to do their job, so it is BLM's fault that crime goes up?

So if a doctor were to kill a patient through gross incomitance, and face no repercussions from it, and I organized a protest that the medical board/hospitals should do something about him and others like him, it would be my fault if other doctors simply stopped seeing anyone in emergency rooms around the country because they don't like my protest?

 

[Patooka]

One of the most tyrannical, authoritarian, dick-moves is to disarm the people.

Spare me your Red Dawn fantasy. There's stuff in my laundry and underneath my kitchen sink that is far more devastating than a Mini-14 or Bushmaster. So fuck your "disarmed" narrative. Secondly, only the dumbest of dumb cunts thinks banning rifles with .223 calibre or greater that have a semi automatic receiver is the same thing as banning all guns.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We did see a crime spike--but the culprit was BLM, not guns. In cities with big BLM protests the cops became less proactive and crime shot up.

Sooo, BLM protests police brutality and criminal activity by police. The police throw a hissy fit and refuse to do their job, so it is BLM's fault that crime goes up?

So if a doctor were to kill a patient through gross incomitance, and face no repercussions from it, and I organized a protest that the medical board/hospitals should do something about him and others like him, it would be my fault if other doctors simply stopped seeing anyone in emergency rooms around the country because they don't like my protest?

It’s not like their motto is “protect and serve” or some such nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

One of the most tyrannical, authoritarian, dick-moves is to disarm the people.

Spare me your Red Dawn fantasy. There's stuff in my laundry and underneath my kitchen sink that is far more devastating than a Mini-14 or Bushmaster. So fuck your "disarmed" narrative. Secondly, only the dumbest of dumb cunts thinks banning rifles with .223 calibre or greater that have a semi automatic receiver is the same thing as banning all guns.

It's not about the calibre. It's about the sum total of moment force the gun expresses on the projectile.

To that end it's more about the powder charge volume and maximum burst tolerance of the weapon. It's not about the size of the bullet but how much "fuck you" you can put behind it.

.223 is deadly because it's long and massive and has a fuckton of powder packed behind shoving it down a thick barrel that won't burst under the force.

THAT is what needs to be factored in limiting a semiautomatic action.

 

[Patooka]

One of the most tyrannical, authoritarian, dick-moves is to disarm the people.

Spare me your Red Dawn fantasy. There's stuff in my laundry and underneath my kitchen sink that is far more devastating than a Mini-14 or Bushmaster. So fuck your "disarmed" narrative. Secondly, only the dumbest of dumb cunts thinks banning rifles with .223 calibre or greater that have a semi automatic receiver is the same thing as banning all guns.

It's not about the calibre. It's about the sum total of moment force the gun expresses on the projectile.

To that end it's more about the powder charge volume and maximum burst tolerance of the weapon. It's not about the size of the bullet but how much "fuck you" you can put behind it.

.223 is deadly because it's long and massive and has a fuckton of powder packed behind shoving it down a thick barrel that won't burst under the force.

THAT is what needs to be factored in limiting a semiautomatic action.

You're absolutely right, but when you try to explain half mv squared and tolerances to idiots who want to cosplay on instagram their eyes tend to glaze over.

 

[atrib]

We did see a crime spike--but the culprit was BLM, not guns. In cities with big BLM protests the cops became less proactive and crime shot up.

So the police were to blame for refusing to do their job, and not the protests. I don't understand why you say the culprit was BLM.

 

[bilby]

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.

Criminals tend to be young and male. And you're thinking of them in isolation--the reality is the law of the street is settled with force. A criminal who can't use force is going to be at the bottom of the pecking order. Of course criminals will be on average stronger than the average person.

Note that white collar crime is different--white collar criminals don't function in the world of the street and they're often older. They typically don't have much in the way of combat capability. You're not going to be mugged by a white collar criminal, though.

No, you're going to be mugged by a street criminal from the bottom of the pecking order. The tough criminals prey on the weak criminals, because that's a lot safer than preying on the general public.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We did see a crime spike--but the culprit was BLM, not guns. In cities with big BLM protests the cops became less proactive and crime shot up.

Sooo, BLM protests police brutality and criminal activity by police. The police throw a hissy fit and refuse to do their job, so it is BLM's fault that crime goes up?

It happened, however you want to attribute the blame. The end result of the BLM protests was a lot more dead blacks.

So if a doctor were to kill a patient through gross incomitance, and face no repercussions from it, and I organized a protest that the medical board/hospitals should do something about him and others like him, it would be my fault if other doctors simply stopped seeing anyone in emergency rooms around the country because they don't like my protest?

Do you realize we have something approximating this right now? A nurse sentenced to jail for what looks like the sort of thing that's inevitable when they're overworked and have to deal with horribly designed safety systems. The result has been a lot of nurses quitting high stress positions. The medical people refuse to be put in the situation and ERs grow even more understaffed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of the most tyrannical, authoritarian, dick-moves is to disarm the people.

Spare me your Red Dawn fantasy. There's stuff in my laundry and underneath my kitchen sink that is far more devastating than a Mini-14 or Bushmaster. So fuck your "disarmed" narrative. Secondly, only the dumbest of dumb cunts thinks banning rifles with .223 calibre or greater that have a semi automatic receiver is the same thing as banning all guns.

Because it's about chipping away gun rights a step at a time. It's an announced policy of the gun-grabbers. Thus, of course, the gun guys are going to resist the camel's nose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Criminals tend to be young and male. And you're thinking of them in isolation--the reality is the law of the street is settled with force. A criminal who can't use force is going to be at the bottom of the pecking order. Of course criminals will be on average stronger than the average person.

Note that white collar crime is different--white collar criminals don't function in the world of the street and they're often older. They typically don't have much in the way of combat capability. You're not going to be mugged by a white collar criminal, though.

No, you're going to be mugged by a street criminal from the bottom of the pecking order. The tough criminals prey on the weak criminals, because that's a lot safer than preying on the general public.

That would only make sense if the weak criminals were weaker than the average person and and enough value to make it worthwhile. Neither is likely to be true.

 

[bilby]

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.

Criminals tend to be young and male. And you're thinking of them in isolation--the reality is the law of the street is settled with force. A criminal who can't use force is going to be at the bottom of the pecking order. Of course criminals will be on average stronger than the average person.

Note that white collar crime is different--white collar criminals don't function in the world of the street and they're often older. They typically don't have much in the way of combat capability. You're not going to be mugged by a white collar criminal, though.

No, you're going to be mugged by a street criminal from the bottom of the pecking order. The tough criminals prey on the weak criminals, because that's a lot safer than preying on the general public.

That would only make sense if the weak criminals were weaker than the average person and and enough value to make it worthwhile. Neither is likely to be true.

Weak criminals are criminals, so don't have police to protect them. Therefore they are far weaker than the average person.

And any value is enough to make it worthwhile, when the cost is infinitesimal. That's the whole basis of theft - if it weren't far easier than work, people would turn to honest labour when they were in desperate need.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That would only make sense if the weak criminals were weaker than the average person and and enough value to make it worthwhile. Neither is likely to be true.

Weak criminals are criminals, so don't have police to protect them. Therefore they are far weaker than the average person.

And any value is enough to make it worthwhile, when the cost is infinitesimal. That's the whole basis of theft - if it weren't far easier than work, people would turn to honest labour when they were in desperate need.

Worth is more than just effort, but the risk.

 

[lpetrich]

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about alternatives to guns for self-defense?

Like body armor and like low-lethality weapons? Tasers and the like.

 

[bilby]

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about alternatives to guns for self-defense?

Guns are utterly useless for self-defence.

A gun is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one; If someone pulls a gun on you, body armour or hard cover is a defence. Pulling your own gun and shooting back only works as a defence in the movies - in the real world, you get shot.

Mexican stand-offs are another trope from fiction. If two people are both aiming guns at each other, the first to fire will win. To hold your fire in an attempt to prevent your opponent from firing is utterly futile, and results in you being shot.

It's possible to use suppressive fire on a battlefield in a defensive way, but unless you're getting into a prolonged gun battle between significant numbers of adversaries, guns are completely pants as a means of defence.

The reason people don't talk about alternatives to guns for self-defence is that a serious discussion of self-defence will quickly show guns not to be a defence in the first place.

 

[lpetrich]

Good points, bilby. Some people seem to think that having a gun will make them bulletproof.

If I had the choice between wearing good body armor and having a gun, I'd choose the body armor, and very quickly. It will work no matter what I do, and it will not seem aggressive and threatening.

Opinion | Jamie Raskin on The Second Amendment - The New York Times - by Constitutional-law professor and member of Congress Jamie Raskin

Many Republicans in Congress agree with Representative Matt Gaetz that the Second Amendment “is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary.”

This purported right to overthrow the government means that the people must enjoy access to weapons that are wholly unnecessary for hunting or self-defense, such as military-style assault weapons. As Representative Chip Roy, a Republican, argues, the Second Amendment was “designed purposefully to empower the people to resist the force of tyranny used against them.”

Some champions of this insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment seem to glorify violence against public officials. Two weeks before the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection overran the U.S. Capitol, Representative Lauren Boebert declared that the Second Amendment “has nothing to do with hunting, unless you’re talking about hunting tyrants, maybe.”

Then about the trials of the Jan. 6 attackers,

... not a single charge has been dismissed by any federal (or state) court on the grounds that the Second Amendment or any other part of the Constitution gives them the right to engage in violent insurrection against the government.

his is for excellent reason. The Constitution treats insurrection and rebellion as political dangers, not protected rights. Article I gives Congress the power to “provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” The guarantee clause in Article IV tells the United States to guarantee a republican form of government to the states and protect them “against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” These provisions followed Shays’s Rebellion, an armed uprising in Massachusetts in the 1780s.

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment disqualified from public office anyone who had sworn an oath to support the Constitution but then participated in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.

Before the last half-century, the Supreme Court has upheld gun restrictions.

The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment’s reference to a “well-regulated militia” means well-regulated by the government. In 1886 the court upheld an Illinois law criminalizing private paramilitary groups as a legitimate measure “necessary to the public peace, safety and good order.” The “militia” is not some reserve power to rebel against the government but the well-organized instrument by which state and federal governments have opposed domestic violence.