Yet another shooting thread

[Loren Pechtel]

You'll have to take out an awful lot of legal guns to reduce supply of illegal ones. Why should we not believe that the primary effect is the real objective?

Because the real objective is to reduce the number of people who get shot.

If the number of legal guns falls dramatically, what problem does this cause for anybody?

Because you continue to stick your head in the sand about self defense.

We do not have good data on self defense incidents, but it certainly looks like a legally owned gun is quite a bit more likely to prevent a crime than commit a crime. (And note that most defensive uses of guns don't even involve drawing them. Somebody realizes they're being set up as a target, they reveal their gun, the bad guys take off.)

 

[bilby]

What you want to achieve (assuming that you want fewer people to be needlessly killed) is a situation where the average citizen reacts to seeing (or thinking they might have seen) a gun, by calling the cops; And where the cops respond to such reports as though that sighting were a major threat to public safety.

This cannot be achieved while legally carrying a gun is a ubiquitous activity.

The problem with your theory is that the bad guys keep their guns hidden.

It's not a theory, it's an observation.

If you see a gun not actively being used for criminal purpose the odds that it's legitimate is awfully close to 100%. Criminals do not walk around with visible guns!

That is only true where visible guns are likely to invoke an overwhelming police response.

And I am not talking about some fool walking around with an obvious and highly visible firearm; I am talking about some passer-by catching a glimpse of a poorly concealed gun.

 

[bilby]

And note that your second objective is the gun-grabber's holy grail--a list of all the guns out there.

Yeah, and the DMV are car-grabbers, so now that registration is mandatory, it's only a matter of time before legal automobile owners have their vehicles confiscated by the government.

Because that doesn't sound at all like the paranoid rantings of a crazy person who is terrified of government.

Nobody's suggested confiscating all the cars. Plenty of gun grabbers have suggested confiscating all the guns.

Maybe. You should have that conversation with them though - I am neither a spokesman nor a supporter of that position.

 

[bilby]

You'll have to take out an awful lot of legal guns to reduce supply of illegal ones. Why should we not believe that the primary effect is the real objective?

Because the real objective is to reduce the number of people who get shot.

If the number of legal guns falls dramatically, what problem does this cause for anybody?

Because you continue to stick your head in the sand about self defense.

Not at all. The use of lethal force as a first resort for self defence is immoral, unethical, and unacceptable.

Tou continue to stick your head in the sand with regards to the morality of killing people just because they scared you.

We do not have good data on self defense incidents, but it certainly looks like a legally owned gun is quite a bit more likely to prevent a crime than commit a crime.

No, it doesn't.

My evidence? Exactly the same as the evidence you presented in bold above.

Your guesses are not supported by the absence of evidence that contraducts them.

(And note that most defensive uses of guns don't even involve drawing them. Somebody realizes they're being set up as a target, they reveal their gun, the bad guys take off.)

In the movies, sure.

Movies are not an accurate depiction of reality.

 

[Toni]

You'll have to take out an awful lot of legal guns to reduce supply of illegal ones. Why should we not believe that the primary effect is the real objective?

Because the real objective is to reduce the number of people who get shot.

If the number of legal guns falls dramatically, what problem does this cause for anybody?

Because you continue to stick your head in the sand about self defense.

We do not have good data on self defense incidents, but it certainly looks like a legally owned gun is quite a bit more likely to prevent a crime than commit a crime. (And note that most defensive uses of guns don't even involve drawing them. Somebody realizes they're being set up as a target, they reveal their gun, the bad guys take off.)

How exactly does a legally owned gun prevent crime? Aside from the no crime of owning one?

Do you really think that people are scaring burglars away from their homes with their AKs that you insist are perfectly fine? Or their handguns in purses or holsters?

Never mind data—I just am not seeing anything in the news about such deterrence. I DO see stories of people shooting other people for entirely specious reasons, including a recent case in my general area where someone shot another person because the shooting victim drive past his car ‘too slowly’. No, this is not an area rife with gang shootings where that might be a semi-reasonable concern. BTW, my area is largely rural and local news reports EVERYTHING that happens. If my neighbor scared off a burglar with his hunting rifle, it would make the news, albeit slightly less quickly than the neighbors sharing his story—because we do that around here: mention if it seems like someone got into an unlocked vehicle or wandered into the wrong house,etc, or if an unrecognized vehicle is cruising the area or parked too long on the street.

A lot of people own guns in my town and surrounding area.