Yet another shooting thread

[Derec]

You say that, but there has never been a single instance where someone tried to hold me up by pointing a gun at me from several yards away or more, and where I didn’t whip out my trusty Glock and shoot the gun right out of their hands.

Shooting a gun out of bad guy's hands is a Hollywood myth, but shooting the perp in self defense when held at gunpoint has been known to happen.
Just a few examples:
3 teens injured after trying to rob concealed carry license holder: Chicago police
Livermore Police: Gun store owner shoots, kills attempted robber
St. Paul victim fatally shoots armed robber, 16, police say
Darius Smith, 15 - The Homicide Report

^ Gospel Truth

What does he have to do with this?

 

[bilby]

You’ll need to expand a bit on what “minimize media coverage” means here, because it sounds a lot like you’re advocating censorship

What I would like to see is that any news outlet would be restricted to covering any given fact about such incidents once a year, other than as needed to provide consistency. You can say it, you just can't keep saying it. They don't get the attention the shooters crave. Give it the sort of coverage that 4 hours of traffic deaths (the equivalent of the Maine shooter) get.

It’s bizarre to me, to think that that’s more easily achievable or effective than reforming gun legislation.

Gun legislation can't remove the hundreds of millions of guns out there. Something sufficiently strict could get rid of most of them but the ones that would remain would by definition be in criminal hands. And guns in the hands of the law-abiding are a very minor part of crime statistics.

There are plenty of illegal guns in Europe. They're not a problem, because their illegality makes even hardened criminals wary of the possibility of being caught with one.

A gun in Europe is a ticket to a world of pain. If the cops find one in your home, or your car, or on your person, you're going to jail. Regardless of whether they have any evidence of any other crime that they can pin on you.

If a member of the public sees a person with a gun, they call the cops, who drop everything and show up in force. Casually noticing that a person has a gun, and then carrying on as though it were normal, isn't a thing when guns aren't generally lawful.

Illegal guns are cheaper in Europe than legal ones. Because literally nobody wants an illegal gun.

Even the criminals who do armed robberies typically don't want to keep guns; They obtain them as shortly as possible before a raid, and dispose of them as quickly as possible afterwards. Supplying firearms to such criminals is a specialist criminal practice in its own right.

Gun legislation doesn't NEED to "remove the hundreds of millions of guns out there", as observation of places where it's already in place can easily show. All that's needed to massively reduce gun violence is to make people wary of having, much less carrying, unlawful firearms.

A gun that's hidden away and never brought out of hiding isn't much of a danger to anyone. Despite its not having been handed in and destroyed.

 

[bilby]

Criminally shooting people is a misuse of the product.
Shooting somebody in self-defense is not.

Shooting somebody in self defence isn't actually a thing.

Saying this doesn't make it so.

And saying that doesn't make it not so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

there really is no point in trying to stop some murders if we won’t be stopping all or even most murder. Seems like too much of a bother.

In fact, such a small fraction of people die of murder it’s a wonder we even report on it at all.

The point is you should focus on the things with big returns rather than things with small returns.

Alternatively one could say focus on the things with some returns rather than things with no returns.

Actually removing every rifle in existence would only amount to 5% of murders prevented even if there's no displacement and there certainly would be.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

The point is that you are treating the most important part of the problem as one that at best will remove a few percent of the problem.

How about actually fixing some things like actually taking guns from DV perps and not allowing the charges to be pled down to avoid that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You’ll need to expand a bit on what “minimize media coverage” means here, because it sounds a lot like you’re advocating censorship

What I would like to see is that any news outlet would be restricted to covering any given fact about such incidents once a year, other than as needed to provide consistency. You can say it, you just can't keep saying it. They don't get the attention the shooters crave. Give it the sort of coverage that 4 hours of traffic deaths (the equivalent of the Maine shooter) get.

It’s bizarre to me, to think that that’s more easily achievable or effective than reforming gun legislation.

Gun legislation can't remove the hundreds of millions of guns out there. Something sufficiently strict could get rid of most of them but the ones that would remain would by definition be in criminal hands. And guns in the hands of the law-abiding are a very minor part of crime statistics.

There are plenty of illegal guns in Europe. They're not a problem, because their illegality makes even hardened criminals wary of the possibility of being caught with one.

A gun in Europe is a ticket to a world of pain. If the cops find one in your home, or your car, or on your person, you're going to jail. Regardless of whether they have any evidence of any other crime that they can pin on you.

If a member of the public sees a person with a gun, they call the cops, who drop everything and show up in force. Casually noticing that a person has a gun, and then carrying on as though it were normal, isn't a thing when guns aren't generally lawful.

Illegal guns are cheaper in Europe than legal ones. Because literally nobody wants an illegal gun.

Even the criminals who do armed robberies typically don't want to keep guns; They obtain them as shortly as possible before a raid, and dispose of them as quickly as possible afterwards. Supplying firearms to such criminals is a specialist criminal practice in its own right.

Gun legislation doesn't NEED to "remove the hundreds of millions of guns out there", as observation of places where it's already in place can easily show. All that's needed to massively reduce gun violence is to make people wary of having, much less carrying, unlawful firearms.

A gun that's hidden away and never brought out of hiding isn't much of a danger to anyone. Despite its not having been handed in and destroyed.

Much of what you talk about happens in the US, also. Felon in possession is a serious charge, guns are hidden in community locations and only brought out to commit a crime.

The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them.

 

[Shadowy Man]

there really is no point in trying to stop some murders if we won’t be stopping all or even most murder. Seems like too much of a bother.

In fact, such a small fraction of people die of murder it’s a wonder we even report on it at all.

The point is you should focus on the things with big returns rather than things with small returns.

Alternatively one could say focus on the things with some returns rather than things with no returns.

Actually removing every rifle in existence would only amount to 5% of murders prevented even if there's no displacement and there certainly would be.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

The point is that you are treating the most important part of the problem as one that at best will remove a few percent of the problem.

How about actually fixing some things like actually taking guns from DV perps and not allowing the charges to be pled down to avoid that.

It’s not an either or. There’s no reason to not solve one smaller problem because it doesn’t solve any larger problems too. (Too many negatives in that sentence, sorry.)

Why do you think this is a zero sum situation?

 

[bilby]

The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them.

As the only people I see walking around with guns are cops, I should rather hope not.

Though, this is Queensland, so...

 

[Millrat]

You’ll need to expand a bit on what “minimize media coverage” means here, because it sounds a lot like you’re advocating censorship

What I would like to see is that any news outlet would be restricted to covering any given fact about such incidents once a year, other than as needed to provide consistency. You can say it, you just can't keep saying it. They don't get the attention the shooters crave. Give it the sort of coverage that 4 hours of traffic deaths (the equivalent of the Maine shooter) get.

It’s bizarre to me, to think that that’s more easily achievable or effective than reforming gun legislation.

Gun legislation can't remove the hundreds of millions of guns out there. Something sufficiently strict could get rid of most of them but the ones that would remain would by definition be in criminal hands. And guns in the hands of the law-abiding are a very minor part of crime statistics.

The objective is not to remove hundreds of millions of guns. It’s to get a better handle on what’s essentially domestic terrorism.

Do you think that somehow controlling how the media behaves will be accomplished without legislation? That even with sufficiently strict controls, there wouldn’t still be those that won’t abide by them?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

there really is no point in trying to stop some murders if we won’t be stopping all or even most murder. Seems like too much of a bother.

In fact, such a small fraction of people die of murder it’s a wonder we even report on it at all.

The point is you should focus on the things with big returns rather than things with small returns.

Alternatively one could say focus on the things with some returns rather than things with no returns.

Actually removing every rifle in existence would only amount to 5% of murders prevented even if there's no displacement and there certainly would be.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

The point is that you are treating the most important part of the problem as one that at best will remove a few percent of the problem.

How about actually fixing some things like actually taking guns from DV perps and not allowing the charges to be pled down to avoid that.

It’s not an either or. There’s no reason to not solve one smaller problem because it doesn’t solve any larger problems too. (Too many negatives in that sentence, sorry.)

Why do you think this is a zero sum situation?

It's zero sum in that there is a limited amount of effort available for problem solving. I'm saying to apply that effort where you will get the most benefit from it. And rarely is the most visible source of problems actually the best place to change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You’ll need to expand a bit on what “minimize media coverage” means here, because it sounds a lot like you’re advocating censorship

What I would like to see is that any news outlet would be restricted to covering any given fact about such incidents once a year, other than as needed to provide consistency. You can say it, you just can't keep saying it. They don't get the attention the shooters crave. Give it the sort of coverage that 4 hours of traffic deaths (the equivalent of the Maine shooter) get.

It’s bizarre to me, to think that that’s more easily achievable or effective than reforming gun legislation.

Gun legislation can't remove the hundreds of millions of guns out there. Something sufficiently strict could get rid of most of them but the ones that would remain would by definition be in criminal hands. And guns in the hands of the law-abiding are a very minor part of crime statistics.

The objective is not to remove hundreds of millions of guns. It’s to get a better handle on what’s essentially domestic terrorism.

Do you think that somehow controlling how the media behaves will be accomplished without legislation? That even with sufficiently strict controls, there wouldn’t still be those that won’t abide by them?

Strict controls probably would curtail mass shootings. But look at Australia--big anti-gun measure, it appears to have taken a big bite out of mass shootings. However, you can't even detect it in the murder rate over time. The murder rate had been declining, it continued to do so on the same path as before they changed the law.

 

[Shadowy Man]

there really is no point in trying to stop some murders if we won’t be stopping all or even most murder. Seems like too much of a bother.

In fact, such a small fraction of people die of murder it’s a wonder we even report on it at all.

The point is you should focus on the things with big returns rather than things with small returns.

Alternatively one could say focus on the things with some returns rather than things with no returns.

Actually removing every rifle in existence would only amount to 5% of murders prevented even if there's no displacement and there certainly would be.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

The point is that you are treating the most important part of the problem as one that at best will remove a few percent of the problem.

How about actually fixing some things like actually taking guns from DV perps and not allowing the charges to be pled down to avoid that.

It’s not an either or. There’s no reason to not solve one smaller problem because it doesn’t solve any larger problems too. (Too many negatives in that sentence, sorry.)

Why do you think this is a zero sum situation?

It's zero sum in that there is a limited amount of effort available for problem solving. I'm saying to apply that effort where you will get the most benefit from it. And rarely is the most visible source of problems actually the best place to change.

Considering how much time Congress wastes on useless stuff I think there could easily be time to solve lots of problems if we would stop electing idiots to office.

 

[bilby]

The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them.

They do, however, provide a very effective cover indeed for anyone who does want to commit a crime with a gun.

If you see someone with a gun here, it's a big deal. Someone, probably several someones, will call the cops, and they will likely respond rapidly and in large numbers; Just merely having seen a gun is enough to get a massive police response.

There's a huge difference between "The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them" and "Anyone seen walking around with a gun will very quickly find themselves being questioned by the police".

It's irrelevant to the level of gun crime that a gun is easy to obtain, if merely possessing a gun puts you squarely in the sights of the police. You can get a gun, but you're very probably going to be arrested for having it, before you have the chance to commit a crime (other than unlawfully possessing it). So why would you want to carry one?

 

[bilby]

Strict controls probably would curtail mass shootings. But look at Australia--big anti-gun measure, it appears to have taken a big bite out of mass shootings. However, you can't even detect it in the murder rate over time. The murder rate had been declining, it continued to do so on the same path as before they changed the law.

Frankly, I would rather live in a place with a low and declining murder rate and no mass shootings, than in a place with a low and declining murder rate but with occasional mass shootings.

Your implication that many people wouldn't choose the former over the latter is, I strongly suspect, unfounded.

I would also like to mention that the form of your argument here (that as prior to the legislation, mass shootings in Australia didn't rise above the "noise floor" in the murder statistics, they were therefore of zero concern or importance), is exactly the opposite form of argument from the one you use to oppose increased minimum wages; And I would be interested to know whether you yourself have noticed that you are in sharp disagreement with yourself, and if so, which of these lines of argument you plan to stop using (and to feel embarrassed about having ever used).

 

[ZiprHead]

Supreme Court to consider challenge to federal bump stock ban

WTAF!?!

 

[Tigers!]

The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them.

As the only people I see walking around with guns are cops, I should rather hope not.

Though, this is Queensland, so...

More risky in Qld than guns are what people wear to the beach

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's zero sum in that there is a limited amount of effort available for problem solving. I'm saying to apply that effort where you will get the most benefit from it. And rarely is the most visible source of problems actually the best place to change.

Considering how much time Congress wastes on useless stuff I think there could easily be time to solve lots of problems if we would stop electing idiots to office.

Congress does very little problem solving. That's done on the streets and is far more dependent on the funding than the rules. Not just for the police, but for the prosecutors and the public defenders and the courtrooms etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them.

They do, however, provide a very effective cover indeed for anyone who does want to commit a crime with a gun.

If you see someone with a gun here, it's a big deal. Someone, probably several someones, will call the cops, and they will likely respond rapidly and in large numbers; Just merely having seen a gun is enough to get a massive police response.

There's a huge difference between "The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them" and "Anyone seen walking around with a gun will very quickly find themselves being questioned by the police".

It's irrelevant to the level of gun crime that a gun is easy to obtain, if merely possessing a gun puts you squarely in the sights of the police. You can get a gun, but you're very probably going to be arrested for having it, before you have the chance to commit a crime (other than unlawfully possessing it). So why would you want to carry one?

Our criminals generally do not openly walk around with a gun. The fact that they're not hiding it makes it virtually certain they're not a bad guy.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's zero sum in that there is a limited amount of effort available for problem solving. I'm saying to apply that effort where you will get the most benefit from it. And rarely is the most visible source of problems actually the best place to change.

Considering how much time Congress wastes on useless stuff I think there could easily be time to solve lots of problems if we would stop electing idiots to office.

Congress does very little problem solving. That's done on the streets and is far more dependent on the funding than the rules. Not just for the police, but for the prosecutors and the public defenders and the courtrooms etc.

Sure but the context was banning assault rifles and that’s not “done on the streets”.

It seems that the police prosecutors etc are not doing a good job at preventing mass shootings. Which is why we’re talking about action at a higher level.

But since banning assault rifles will only stop such a statistically small number of murders it hardly seems worth the effort, at least by the logic being presented.

 

[bilby]

The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them.

They do, however, provide a very effective cover indeed for anyone who does want to commit a crime with a gun.

If you see someone with a gun here, it's a big deal. Someone, probably several someones, will call the cops, and they will likely respond rapidly and in large numbers; Just merely having seen a gun is enough to get a massive police response.

There's a huge difference between "The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them" and "Anyone seen walking around with a gun will very quickly find themselves being questioned by the police".

It's irrelevant to the level of gun crime that a gun is easy to obtain, if merely possessing a gun puts you squarely in the sights of the police. You can get a gun, but you're very probably going to be arrested for having it, before you have the chance to commit a crime (other than unlawfully possessing it). So why would you want to carry one?

Our criminals generally do not openly walk around with a gun. The fact that they're not hiding it makes it virtually certain they're not a bad guy.

And if a member of the public sees someone with a gun, they therefore do nothing.

Which is the entire reason why allowing people to be armed means more gun crime. Much more gun crime.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them.

They do, however, provide a very effective cover indeed for anyone who does want to commit a crime with a gun.

If you see someone with a gun here, it's a big deal. Someone, probably several someones, will call the cops, and they will likely respond rapidly and in large numbers; Just merely having seen a gun is enough to get a massive police response.

There's a huge difference between "The people you see walking around with a gun almost never commit crimes with them" and "Anyone seen walking around with a gun will very quickly find themselves being questioned by the police".

It's irrelevant to the level of gun crime that a gun is easy to obtain, if merely possessing a gun puts you squarely in the sights of the police. You can get a gun, but you're very probably going to be arrested for having it, before you have the chance to commit a crime (other than unlawfully possessing it). So why would you want to carry one?

Our criminals generally do not openly walk around with a gun. The fact that they're not hiding it makes it virtually certain they're not a bad guy.

Except when they are.