Why we shouldn't focus on mass shootings

[Tom Sawyer]

Honestly, isn't that why you carry a second wallet in areas of potential muggings? Lose a few bucks, move on.

Granted, it does occur to me that I hardly ever carry cash. Maybe I should put a sign on my jacket that reads "wallet never contains more than $20".

Is carrying second wallets a thing? If you're that paranoid, aren't you already carrying a gun and not going out after sundown?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Honestly, isn't that why you carry a second wallet in areas of potential muggings? Lose a few bucks, move on.

Granted, it does occur to me that I hardly ever carry cash. Maybe I should put a sign on my jacket that reads "wallet never contains more than $20".

Is carrying second wallets a thing? If you're that paranoid, aren't you already carrying a gun and not going out after sundown?

I only know of a single person who has had it. He went to the Carnival in Rio. He lost his second wallet every night. When I travel I keep my money all spread out all over. No wallet. Yes, I have been mugged repeatedly. I only lost pennies each time. Always had a cheap shit watch to lose.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Is carrying second wallets a thing? If you're that paranoid, aren't you already carrying a gun and not going out after sundown?

I only know of a single person who has had it. He went to the Carnival in Rio. He lost his second wallet every night. When I travel I keep my money all spread out all over. No wallet. Yes, I have been mugged repeatedly. I only lost pennies each time. Always had a cheap shit watch to lose.

This is why I never leave my armed compound.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Guns turn muggings into shootings; fist fights into gunfights; drunken brawls into battlefields. And it's probably a bit worse than that, since the effect of HAVING a gun makes certain types of petty criminals feel bolder and more powerful; easier to stick up somebody who might otherwise kick your ass if you can scare them with a gun.

I disagree. Guns often turn muggings from someone injured into nobody injured. When the mugger has overwhelming force available he's less likely to actually use it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Guns turn muggings into shootings; fist fights into gunfights; drunken brawls into battlefields. And it's probably a bit worse than that, since the effect of HAVING a gun makes certain types of petty criminals feel bolder and more powerful; easier to stick up somebody who might otherwise kick your ass if you can scare them with a gun.

I disagree. Guns often turn muggings from someone injured into nobody injured. When the mugger has overwhelming force available he's less likely to actually use it.

Put up stats or shut up.

 

[beero1000]

Guns turn muggings into shootings; fist fights into gunfights; drunken brawls into battlefields. And it's probably a bit worse than that, since the effect of HAVING a gun makes certain types of petty criminals feel bolder and more powerful; easier to stick up somebody who might otherwise kick your ass if you can scare them with a gun.

I disagree. Guns often turn muggings from someone injured into nobody injured. When the mugger has overwhelming force available he's less likely to actually use it.

That does not contradict what he said. Also, even if fewer people get injured in gun muggings, the type of injuries are very different...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Honestly, isn't that why you carry a second wallet in areas of potential muggings? Lose a few bucks, move on.

My wallet contains an expired credit card, a library card for a city I don't live in anymore, and a $5 gift card for Dennys. I keep my money in a hidden pocket in my vest because everything valuable I own tends to disappear and a vest is easier to find than a wallet when you're in a hurry.

Granted, it does occur to me that I hardly ever carry cash. Maybe I should put a sign on my jacket that reads "wallet never contains more than $20".

Also known as "wedding rings."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Guns turn muggings into shootings; fist fights into gunfights; drunken brawls into battlefields. And it's probably a bit worse than that, since the effect of HAVING a gun makes certain types of petty criminals feel bolder and more powerful; easier to stick up somebody who might otherwise kick your ass if you can scare them with a gun.

I disagree. Guns often turn muggings from someone injured into nobody injured.

It would be interesting to hear you try to back up that "often" in that sentence, but since that sentence is bullshit I know you're not going to bother.

When the mugger has overwhelming force available he's less likely to actually use it.

Why? The whole point of HAVING overwhelming force is to use it to... you know, overwhelm your victim. Why waste time making a show of being strong and overwhelming and in control when you can just walk up to the guy and shoot him in the chest and rifle through his pockets at your leisure?

The "criminal underworld" that you imagine to be responsible for all crime in America aren't exactly avid readers of Sun Tzu.

 

[TSwizzle]

There´s a smart way and a stupid way to handle guns. Sweden also has a huge number of guns per person. Not as much as USA. But not far from it. And we´ve never had any mash shootings. What is it we do differently. We have very strict laws regarding how they are handled. You need a licence. And licences are revoked if you don´t behave. You´re also not allowed to transport weapons in built up areas in ways so that they can be used. Simple and cheap laws that fix the problem completely.

The Americans can keep their guns AND get rid of high homicide rates. They can have it both ways. They just chose to take the stupid route for some reason I don´t understand.

I agree in principal that some sort of license should be required before somebody gets to legally own or even buy a gun. It's certainly not a cure all for the USA but it's a step in the right direction. But gun nuts hate the government knowing their business so it's probably a non starter.

 

[ksen]

Guys, Loren has convinced me.

Airline deaths are only a miniscule proportion of deaths by vehicle crashes therefore it'd be dumb to make any laws or regulations based on the rare amount of airline crashes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree. Guns often turn muggings from someone injured into nobody injured.

It would be interesting to hear you try to back up that "often" in that sentence, but since that sentence is bullshit I know you're not going to bother.

When the mugger has overwhelming force available he's less likely to actually use it.

Why? The whole point of HAVING overwhelming force is to use it to... you know, overwhelm your victim. Why waste time making a show of being strong and overwhelming and in control when you can just walk up to the guy and shoot him in the chest and rifle through his pockets at your leisure?

The "criminal underworld" that you imagine to be responsible for all crime in America aren't exactly avid readers of Sun Tzu.

No. The objective of a mugging is to obtain money. Hurting the victim is not the objective.

If all you have is a club or the like you very well might start out by using it in order to stun your victim and make it easier to take his money. With a gun the threat is enough, you'll almost certainly get the money without actually using it. Thus the chance of getting hurt goes inversely with the threat of the mugger's weapon.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It would be interesting to hear you try to back up that "often" in that sentence, but since that sentence is bullshit I know you're not going to bother.

When the mugger has overwhelming force available he's less likely to actually use it.

Why? The whole point of HAVING overwhelming force is to use it to... you know, overwhelm your victim. Why waste time making a show of being strong and overwhelming and in control when you can just walk up to the guy and shoot him in the chest and rifle through his pockets at your leisure?

The "criminal underworld" that you imagine to be responsible for all crime in America aren't exactly avid readers of Sun Tzu.

No. The objective of a mugging is to obtain money. Hurting the victim is not the objective.

If all you have is a club or the like you very well might start out by using it in order to stun your victim and make it easier to take his money. With a gun the threat is enough, you'll almost certainly get the money without actually using it. Thus the chance of getting hurt goes inversely with the threat of the mugger's weapon.

More blabbering, and no backing up anything with any data. Typical.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree in principal that some sort of license should be required before somebody gets to legally own or even buy a gun. It's certainly not a cure all for the USA but it's a step in the right direction. But gun nuts hate the government knowing their business so it's probably a non starter.

The problem is that most of the proponents of gun licenses see it as the first step towards banning them. They dream up all sorts of systems to get a backdoor list of what weapons people have which is normally step #1 towards taking them away.

The gun owners quite rightly make a big fuss about such proposals.

That's why I favor treating gun licenses like we do driver's licenses--it's a permission to possess and not tied to whatever guns you might own. It also needs to be a shall-issue law--no demonstrating a reason, you get the license so long as you meet the requirements.

 

[ronburgundy]

In Sweden, the muggers are rarely armed either (relative to the US), so they cannot shoot, even if nervous. Againt the 3:1 ratio of per capita guns in the US versus Sweden way under-estimates the difference in criminals access to handguns, because the handgun difference is greater and the laws limiting gun-per-person sales and resales prevent the flow from the legal into the illegal market.
It is not that Swede criminals don't shoot because they are less nervous about the victim being armed. The criminals simple do not have guns most of the time, so their emotions cannot translate into a homicide without a whole lot more effort and risk to themselves. Also, many murders are criminals killing other criminals. In Sweden, neither criminal has a gun, so there is less need to preemptively kill them and hard to kill them when you don't have a gun anyway.

The fall of the Soviet Union changed all that. It´s not hard getting hold of a gun now. But criminals only use guns fighting each other. The use of guns vs non-criminals is unheard of. Criminals rarely walk around armed with guns. They go and get guns when shit gets real. But they rarely have them "just to be safe". .

The potential of obtaining a gun "when things get real" versus actually having one are vastly different. In the US even petty thieves and pot dealing teenageers have actively refuse guns offered to them on a regular basis for less than the cost of a video game. One study of southside Chicago found that 25% of teens at a particular high school had carried an illegal handgun at some point between the age of 14 and 18. Swedish criminals don't actually have handguns in hand because they are not remotely as cheap and accessible as in the US. Every fact shows this. Relative to nearly impossible, guns may be easier to get now. But in the US they are as easier and cheaper to get than a bag of weed. You don't even have to go to a criminal to buy one or engage in a criminal exchange, just go the local gun show or look online for listings of people selling them out of their house requiring no ID, no check, no registration.
In Chicago, virtually no mugging victims ever have a gun, in fact they are committing a crime if they do. The criminals know this and yet muggings using a gun happen all the time. That shows that guns are not used out of nervousness that the victim might be armed. They are used because the muggers have them, and they have them because it so easy and cheap to get one that they'd have to almost try harder not to have one.

 

[TV and credit cards]

No. The objective of a mugging is to obtain money. Hurting the victim is not the objective.

If all you have is a club or the like you very well might start out by using it in order to stun your victim and make it easier to take his money. With a gun the threat is enough, you'll almost certainly get the money without actually using it. Thus the chance of getting hurt goes inversely with the threat of the mugger's weapon.

Hopefully. I think you might be giving the assailant too much credit. Remember, the dude may have problems with rational thought from time to time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree in principal that some sort of license should be required before somebody gets to legally own or even buy a gun. It's certainly not a cure all for the USA but it's a step in the right direction. But gun nuts hate the government knowing their business so it's probably a non starter.

The problem is that most of the proponents of gun licenses see it as the first step towards banning them. They dream up all sorts of systems to get a backdoor list of what weapons people have which is normally step #1 towards taking them away.

Yup... It is just like fishing. We'll have fishing banned any day now. HAW HAW HAW! Any other bullshit strawman arguments?

The gun owners quite rightly make a big fuss about such proposals.

How long has registrations been around... and they still have their guns. Hmm... I know what a normal person would conclude from that.

That's why I favor treating gun licenses like we do driver's licenses--it's a permission to possess and not tied to whatever guns you might own.

So you are saying you need to get a Title to own a gun?

It also needs to be a shall-issue law--no demonstrating a reason, you get the license so long as you meet the requirements.

Such as demonstrating a reason?

 

[laughing dog]

Guns are not the problem. People not rushing the shooter is the problem.

 

[Frikki]

Guns are not the problem. People not rushing the shooter is the problem.

Blacks not rushing the shooter is the problem.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It would be interesting to hear you try to back up that "often" in that sentence, but since that sentence is bullshit I know you're not going to bother.

When the mugger has overwhelming force available he's less likely to actually use it.

Why? The whole point of HAVING overwhelming force is to use it to... you know, overwhelm your victim. Why waste time making a show of being strong and overwhelming and in control when you can just walk up to the guy and shoot him in the chest and rifle through his pockets at your leisure?

The "criminal underworld" that you imagine to be responsible for all crime in America aren't exactly avid readers of Sun Tzu.

No. The objective of a mugging is to obtain money. Hurting the victim is not the objective.

Partially true: the objective of a mugging is to obtain SOMEBODY ELSE'S money through the threat of direct violence. You do not bring "overwhelming force" into a mugging unless you are prepared to use it. Otherwise, it's by definition not "overwhelming force," it's just a bluff. You might as well mug somebody with an airsoft gun.

\If all you have is a club or the like you very well might start out by using it in order to stun your victim and make it easier to take his money. With a gun the threat is enough

And yet shooting your victim in the head is always -- repeat ALWAYS -- easier than threatening him. All the more so if your victim does not seem sufficiently cooperative at first encounter. This is where cowardice comes into play, and a mugger who is frightened of his potential victim will resort to violence the moment it becomes easier to pull the trigger than try to talk the victim into cooperating.

We can't even trust POLICE OFFICERS to avoid escalating to deadly force unnecessarily, why the hell would we expect this of criminals?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And yet shooting your victim in the head is always -- repeat ALWAYS -- easier than threatening him. All the more so if your victim does not seem sufficiently cooperative at first encounter. This is where cowardice comes into play, and a mugger who is frightened of his potential victim will resort to violence the moment it becomes easier to pull the trigger than try to talk the victim into cooperating.

We can't even trust POLICE OFFICERS to avoid escalating to deadly force unnecessarily, why the hell would we expect this of criminals?

Except that has to be balanced by the fact the cops hunt a murderer much harder than they hunt a mugger. The mugger wants money, he has no desire to harm.