Yet another shooting thread

[Jimmy Higgins]

I remember reading someone note here that for some back in the day, Archie Bunker wasn't the satirical punchline, but rather the hero.

 

[robnisch]

As much as I dislike agreeing with some here .
https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html
AR 15 just looks scarier.
I have a Ruger 1022 that I "militarized", it looks pretty scary, but it still a 22 semi.

 

[Rhea]

So the gun owners do not trust the gun control crowd not to come for their guns.

I totally trust that the gun control crowd are not coming for my guns.


Your point is refuted.

 

[ZiprHead]

As much as I dislike agreeing with some here .
https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html
AR 15 just looks scarier.
I have a Ruger 1022 that I "militarized", it looks pretty scary, but it still a 22 semi.

The scarier part is the whole point. It helps fuel the "I'm a badass" psychological kick.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

UNLV mass shooting: 3 killed, 1 hurt in attack on campus

A suspect is dead after three people were killed at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

abcnews.go.com

Crap...

Apparently the shooter was a professor, not a student. But he hasn't been identified by name yet.

Seems to be somebody unhappy they didn't hire him.

 

[Derec]

So the gun owners do not trust the gun control crowd not to come for their guns.

I totally trust that the gun control crowd are not coming for my guns.


Your point is refuted.

Since I did not say "∀", my point is not refuted by a single counterexample.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Her chances are better armed than not armed.

Citation please!

I can find no clear evidence that being armed makes you safer. If anything you increase the chances of harm. Being armed emboldens you to escalate a situation. There is some evidence that it helps prevent property loss.

I will agree we have no clear evidence. I don't think it emboldens most people, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prohibition and interdiction does not work well. It is a cultural problem.

I admit to some “radical” views on this. I believe that prohibition and interdiction ARE the problem, for the most part. In fact I think that the expense and loss of life of instantly decriminalizing the ingestion of all substances, would be more than recouped in short order if not immediately, due to cultural change. Deaths might Instantly go down from current levels as soon as legally supplied, quality controlled drugs were available. Let the free market and accurate labeling work its magic to weed out fentanyl-laced fakes, Chinese imports and bathtub preparations from cartels. People -including addicts - would soon learn to use the Good Stuff, which would be cheap due to accurate labeling being the main regulatory requirement, with fiscal death penalties for violators. Property crimes would plummet. Studies could be provided by those wishing to gain credibility in their consumers’ eyes, and caveat emptor.
The resulting cultural change would be dramatic. And when things settle down, there will be no more cartels, the jails will be half empty, governments at every level will see surpluses …

(and we will all live happily ever after )

Seconded. I believe the drug war causes far more harm than the drugs.

And I think you're wrong about the jails--that's just the direct effect. By removing the heart of the criminal world you free up more police resources to go after the other criminals and you would put a big crimp in the ability to convert crime to money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the gun owners do not trust the gun control crowd not to come for their guns.

Why would the gun owners want to own guns in the first place though?

This is only a problem if there are people out there who have a need for a gun, and who can be trusted not to ever use it in a disproportionate response against another person.

That requirement for its use to be proportionate essentially means that it can only be used in a situation in which the person they are trying to kill is in the process of attempting to kill someone.

Most people are so unlikely ever to be in such a situation, that the desire to own a gun for "self defence" is itself diagnostic of a level of paranoia more than sufficient to make them unsuited to own firearms.

CCW permit holders have a far lower rate of crime than those who don't have permits--and that's even when you count the improper-carry crimes.

And you're wrong about the conditions. It doesn't require attempted murder. If you're in a situation that might kill you you can kill your assailant even if they don't have the specific intent of killing you. You can also kill those trying to rape you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the gun owners do not trust the gun control crowd not to come for their guns.

I totally trust that the gun control crowd are not coming for my guns.


Your point is refuted.

Some of them have admitted they are doing exactly that. (Assuming you have any for them to seize.)

 

[Shadowy Man]

So the gun owners do not trust the gun control crowd not to come for their guns.

Why would the gun owners want to own guns in the first place though?

This is only a problem if there are people out there who have a need for a gun, and who can be trusted not to ever use it in a disproportionate response against another person.

That requirement for its use to be proportionate essentially means that it can only be used in a situation in which the person they are trying to kill is in the process of attempting to kill someone.

Most people are so unlikely ever to be in such a situation, that the desire to own a gun for "self defence" is itself diagnostic of a level of paranoia more than sufficient to make them unsuited to own firearms.

CCW permit holders have a far lower rate of crime than those who don't have permits--and that's even when you count the improper-carry crimes.

Maybe all guns should require permits. In all states.

 

[ZiprHead]

Her chances are better armed than not armed.

Citation please!

I can find no clear evidence that being armed makes you safer. If anything you increase the chances of harm. Being armed emboldens you to escalate a situation. There is some evidence that it helps prevent property loss.

I will agree we have no clear evidence. I don't think it emboldens most people, though.

Apparently it emboldens enough people to become assholes and a danger to society.

 

[bilby]

If you're in a situation that might kill you you can kill your assailant even if they don't have the specific intent of killing you.

No, you fucking can't.

(Note that I couldn't care less what the law might or might not say in some jurisdiction or other - I don't subscribe to the position espoused by The Simpsons' Rev Lovejoy).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CCW permit holders have a far lower rate of crime than those who don't have permits--and that's even when you count the improper-carry crimes.

Maybe all guns should require permits. In all states.

I support the idea of gun licenses so long as they are shall-issue. (Like driver's licenses--you get it unless they show why not.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you're in a situation that might kill you you can kill your assailant even if they don't have the specific intent of killing you.

No, you fucking can't.

That's not how the law works anywhere that I'm aware of.

You are allowed to defend yourself against someone whose actions provide a reasonable threat of killing even if they have no intent on actually doing so. Rapists. Groups doing beatdowns. (No intent to kill but sometimes it does.)

 

[bilby]

If you're in a situation that might kill you you can kill your assailant even if they don't have the specific intent of killing you.

No, you fucking can't.

That's not how the law works anywhere that I'm aware of.

You are allowed to defend yourself against someone whose actions provide a reasonable threat of killing even if they have no intent on actually doing so. Rapists. Groups doing beatdowns. (No intent to kill but sometimes it does.)

Note that I couldn't care less what the law might or might not say in some jurisdiction or other - I don't subscribe to the position

 

[laughing dog]

If you're in a situation that might kill you you can kill your assailant even if they don't have the specific intent of killing you.

No, you fucking can't.

That's not how the law works anywhere that I'm aware of.

You are allowed to defend yourself against someone whose actions provide a reasonable threat of killing even if they have no intent on actually doing so. Rapists. Groups doing beatdowns. (No intent to kill but sometimes it does.)

According to you, I can shoot a police officer who appears to be belligerent towards me?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you're in a situation that might kill you you can kill your assailant even if they don't have the specific intent of killing you.

No, you fucking can't.

That's not how the law works anywhere that I'm aware of.

You are allowed to defend yourself against someone whose actions provide a reasonable threat of killing even if they have no intent on actually doing so. Rapists. Groups doing beatdowns. (No intent to kill but sometimes it does.)

According to you, I can shoot a police officer who appears to be belligerent towards me?

Belligerent doesn't prove wrongdoing. You need a reasonable belief they intend to harm you in an illegal fashion.

 

[marc]

good commercial for gun control

 

[laughing dog]

If you're in a situation that might kill you you can kill your assailant even if they don't have the specific intent of killing you.

No, you fucking can't.

That's not how the law works anywhere that I'm aware of.

You are allowed to defend yourself against someone whose actions provide a reasonable threat of killing even if they have no intent on actually doing so. Rapists. Groups doing beatdowns. (No intent to kill but sometimes it does.)

According to you, I can shoot a police officer who appears to be belligerent towards me?

Belligerent doesn't prove wrongdoing. You need a reasonable belief they intend to harm you in an illegal fashion.

An innocent civilian can have a reasonable belief that a belligerent police officer will kill them even though they have clearly done nothing wrong.

In that situation, your standard means that civilian can shoot the officer.