Gun Control

[Deleted member 93956]

That's the just life in the city.

Snip

...So? Similar thing happened to when I was in LA with my family and our car luggage was emptied using an apparently global Chevrolet controller with most of our mementos and souvenirs along our passports. Are you trying to get across that... thievery easily exploits confusion, I guess?

 

[MutantScalper]

...So? Similar thing happened to when I was in LA with my family and our car luggage was emptied using an apparently global Chevrolet controller with most of our mementos and souvenirs along our passports. Are you trying to get across that... thievery easily exploits confusion, I guess?

Sucks. Interestingly, I keep hearing similar stories from other people visiting US as tourists. Tourists, out-of-towners etc. often aren't safe in big cities etc. There's just a pretty high level of crime in US, and no, flooding the society with firearms isn't the solution.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

I mean, I'm kind of suprised because I don't see how completely non violent crime has anything to do with gun control or lack thereof especially as civillians go. Tourists are easy pickings in most countries period. Even in Utopia Land Europe "watch your wallet" is completely common advice for every semi decently big city. But again, I don't see what does that have to do with anything. Could you stop them with a gun? I... guess? I'm not sure if it's all that big of a deal to get stolen from unless you don't have an insurance or the subject was on the five or even six figures of value, which doesn't cut like your usual purse, wallet, or even your property out of your safe.

 

[Lanfear]

It is that you seem to only imagine that the assailant is invisible to the victim (until they attack), and that the victim would not expect the attack.

(Aside from using a rifle)...To get close to someone, the assailant would have to approach them; or be approached by them. In both cases the victim would see—or at least anticipate a possible attack. Absolute surprise would come from abject carelessness on the part of the victim... and what's any weapon going to do to help in that situation? Even so... having it is better than not; for then there is at least some potential for defense, and mistake on the part of the assailant.

It has nothing to do with being invisible. It's a matter of not being able to read minds or magically divine another person's intent. We move around other people constantly in day to day life. They pass closeby to us all the time and we think nothing of it. The number of people we come into contact with at all who have any interest at all in doing us harm is miniscule. You seem to think that anyone who might view you as a potential target is inclined to be boneheadedly obvious about it rather than to just appear the same as any of the other thousands of people around us, but I don't know why you would ever imagine that to be the case.

That being said, though, situational awareness is a great thing to have - but a much better way to put it to use than by pulling a gun on anyone you think might wish to assail you is to simply avoid situations in which an aggressor might find you an attractive target in the first place. As I said earlier, there is a very good reason for why police recommend avoiding confrontation wherever possible.

When on a dark street alone—with no one else around, does anyone here give the benefit of the doubt to anyone they see on the street? What about those that happen to be walking directly toward you?

If you're walking alone around poorly-lit areas that you know to be dangerous or high in criminal activity, then frankly you've already failed to demonstrate situational awareness.

That is not a situtation that was posed. It is to be read as absurdist. In context, it implies that if you are going to go that far (with your example), then you might as well go all the way.

Using absurdism against an argument only works when the absurdity is in the argument you're trying to counter rather than in the example you're offering yourself. There is nothing absurd about an aggressor surprising their target, it happens much more often than it doesn't.

Not necessarily; but more often than not.

Again, this is a very dangerous thing to assume in a confrontation with a complete stranger.

These are functionally the same thing.

Owning a gun for its own sake is the same as owning one for a specific reason? I would assume the former is more in line with just owning a gun because you think they're cool.

 

[YeeCop]

Again, this is a very dangerous thing to assume in a confrontation with a complete stranger.

Not really. Unless we're talking about bank robbers who meticulously plan out their biggest bank heist, or well-versed computer hackers, most lowly criminals are rather boorish and stupid.

 

[Lanfear]

Not really. Unless we're talking about bank robbers who meticulously plan out their biggest bank heist, or well-versed computer hackers, most lowly criminals are rather boorish and stupid.

I have no clue why you'd ever assume this to be the case. It's completely spurious, and in a violent confrontation you are making a huge error assuming right out of the gate that the person you're dealing with is dumb. You shouldn't make assumptions about how clever or stupid a complete stranger is in general, but especially not in a threatening situation.

 

[YeeCop]

I have no clue why you'd ever assume this to be the case. It's completely spurious, and in a violent confrontation you are making a huge error assuming right out of the gate that the person you're dealing with is dumb. You shouldn't make assumptions about how clever or stupid a complete stranger is in general, but especially not in a threatening situation.

Because you'd have to be a complete dunce to resort to robbing people for their valuables.

 

[Lanfear]

Because you'd have to be a complete dunce to resort to robbing people for their valuables.

Not at all. You may also be desperate. Or it may just be something you're very practiced at doing.

 

[Gizmojunk]

The only way to actually garantue some sense of protection, is to live in a stable society where at least the need for crime is as low as possible.

'As possible' is quite relative. It's a wonderful goal, but in practice it cannot happen; for the simple reason that in order for it to work, everyone must do their fair share in the society—and not everyone will. Hence those that strive for it are inevitably abused by it, and they won't take it forever. Those that cannot get a free lunch may resort to stealing for one.

It has nothing to do with being invisible. It's a matter of not being able to read minds or magically divine another person's intent. We move around other people constantly in day to day life. They pass closeby to us all the time and we think nothing of it.

Speak for yourself. Perhaps you might think nothing of it, but not everyone could tolerate that.

That being said, though, situational awareness is a great thing to have - but a much better way to put it to use than by pulling a gun on anyone you think might wish to assail you is to simply avoid situations in which an aggressor might find you an attractive target in the first place. As I said earlier, there is a very good reason for why police recommend avoiding confrontation wherever possible.

Avoidance is the best practice; having an alternative for when avoidance is not an option, is planning ahead for a second best.

If you're walking alone around poorly-lit areas that you know to be dangerous or high in criminal activity, then frankly you've already failed to demonstrate situational awareness.

I'd have to move to another State. I was talking about conditions in front of my house, taking out the trash, or sitting in my back yard.

]Using absurdism against an argument only works when the absurdity is in the argument you're trying to counter rather than in the example you're offering yourself. There is nothing absurd about an aggressor surprising their target, it happens much more often than it doesn't.

It only works when it's understood; and not taken literally.

I once watched 'The Naked Gun' at a friend's house. Their mother was there, and she watched it with us. She took the entire film literally, and at face value. I didn't think that was possible—at the time; but I did after that, and have ever since.

Owning a gun for its own sake is the same as owning one for a specific reason? I would assume the former is more in line with just owning a gun because you think they're cool.

We have a language barrier. Your past and present assumptions have only made sense to me if taken as a deliberate choice of the worst optional contrary position. If that's not your intention, then we have a language barrier, because then you are jumping to these conclusions with no malice... and that shouldn't be.

 

[Lanfear]

'As possible' is quite relative. It's a wonderful goal, but in practice it cannot happen; for the simple reason that in order for it to work, everyone must do their fair share in the society—and not everyone will. Hence those that strive for it are inevitably abused by it, and they won't take it forever. Those that cannot get a free lunch may resort to stealing for one.

This is pretty reductive... along with the idea that criminals are inherently stupid, assuming them to be inherently lazy or unwilling to work for a living suggests a lack of understanding about the principal causes of crime. It sounds as though you're simply trying to dehumanize criminals.

Speak for yourself. Perhaps you might think nothing of it, but not everyone could tolerate that.

You make it sound as though you're living in a state of paranoia whenever anyone passes anywhere nearby you.

Avoidance is the best practice; having an alternative for when avoidance is not an option, is having a second best course of action.

Absolutely, but why do you think drawing a gun on anyone you suspect may present a threat to you is the second best course of action to avoiding situations in which you might be at high risk of a threat?

I'd have to move to another State. I was talking about conditions in front of my house, taking out the trash, or sitting in my back yard.

You're losing me. Why is your back yard poorly lit and open to strangers randomly approaching you? Why do you need a gun to take your garbage out? Are you living in some kind of dystopian hellhole where your street is just a nonstop gunfight-in-progress?

It only works when it's understood.

I oncewatched 'The Naked Gun' at a friend's house. Their mother was there, and she watched it with us. She took the entire film literally, and at face value. I didn't think that was possible—at the time; but I did after that, and have ever since.

Please explain how one is analogous to the other, if you don't think I understand. You don't actually think I'm taking what you said literally, do you? I'm saying that it's an invalid reductio ad absurdum because it doesn't capture any kind of actual absurdity.

We have a language barrier. Your past and present assumptions have only made sense to me, if taken as a deliberate choice of the worst optional contrary position. If that's not your intention, then we have a language barrier.

Maybe we do, because I'm only trying to present a counter-position to your assumptions about when a gun is and isn't useful and when owning one does and doesn't make sense.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Are you living in Somalia?

No, but there have been 22 murders in the city this year; and there were 157 last year.

You make it sound as though you're living in a state of paranoia whenever anyone passes anywhere nearby you.

Not at all, but you are. I just don't walk around oblivious. I don't ignore people.

Absolutely, but why do you think drawing a gun on anyone you suspect may present a threat to you is the second best course of action to avoiding situations in which you might be at high risk of a threat?

I do not—but (again) you are making that assumption. It really does appear that you will choose the worst way to interpret anything I say. Who said anything about pointing a gun at on someone I suspect may present a threat to me?

*The second best is the second best because all other options are that the assailant is armed, and the victim is not. You might be comfortable with submitting to the mercy of your attacker, but not everyone is so trusting—with reason, and not every attacker is merciful. You might actually and truly believe that a criminal wouldn't shoot you if they have gotten what they wanted from you, but you don't know if all they want is your wallet; and you don't even know if they are sane individuals... and yet you would council others to think of their insurance pay-off as a comfort in lieu of defending themselves.

You're losing me. Why is your back yard poorly lit and open to strangers randomly approaching you? Why do you need a gun to take your garbage out? Are you living in some kind of dystopian hellhole where your street is just a nonstop gunfight-in-progress?

I am no longer surprised by this.

I don't need a gun to take out the trash; (I did not say that I did). You have read what you want into it.
But I do not take out the trash oblivious to my surroundings.
I consider the very real fact that somebody looking for a target might be loitering in this block. I check.

My back yard is open to anyone brazen enough to climb the fence. I've even had a lawn ornament —screwed two feet into the ground— stolen during a neighbors (unbearably loud) birthday party. A guy had actually asked to buy it the week before; I said, 'No', and the next week it was gone; and left a big hole in my yard, that I had fill.

I have a hooded jacket hanging out in the yard right now, daring the owner to return for it; I found it on my roof.
I saw the guy wearing it the day before I found it—when he and another were casing my yard from its perimeter, but I've not seen him since.

You don't actually think I'm taking what you said literally, do you?

I'd like not to. It was not meant literally... yet you are the one who asked me (in total seriousness) about the situation of being chained up to a wall. I had no idea what you were talking about... until you explained (that you had taken it literally).

Maybe we do, because I'm only trying to present a counter-position to your assumptions about when a gun is and isn't useful and when owning one does and doesn't make sense.

I have no qualm or quarrel here; we disagree, but that's the extent of it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

'As possible' is quite relative. It's a wonderful goal, but in practice it cannot happen; for the simple reason that in order for it to work, everyone must do their fair share in the society—and not everyone will. Hence those that strive for it are inevitably abused by it, and they won't take it forever. Those that cannot get a free lunch may resort to stealing for one.

*Shrugs* Works for a lot of European nations, particularly the Scandinavian ones. You would be surprised what can be done by a decent social wellfare, health care and infrastructure giving access to education that is not based so much around how wealthy your parents are or forcing you in a livetime of debth.

But I understand this will never happen in the US as it's Communism.

Not at all, but you are. I just don't walk around oblivious. I don't ignore people.

So do people in prison, and they still get killed and beaten. I guess there is really only one way to be secure from everything.

I think this idea that you could be prepared and ready at all times is build on an illusion, a trick, the idea that you have actuall controll about what's going to happen next. But controll is impossible beacuse no one knows what will happen next. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to prepare for worst case scenarios - like I said if you want to have a gun with you because it makes you feel save, I am fine with that. And I won't like I had at least one situation in my life where I really wish I had a gun ready, that was when a group of Neonazis threatened the life of my mother and mine. And there was no police around either since it was at night. However in my 30+ years that was the only instance where I had to fear for my life - from strangers that is, my family is another matter ... as my mother also almost killed my father once with an illegal weapon he brought home.

But thinking that everyone could be a potential thief trying to murder you for your wallet? Time to change the area and looking for a new home me thinks.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I think this idea that you could be prepared and ready at all times is build on an illusion, a trick, the idea that you have actuall controll about what's going to happen next.

Control (and lack thereof) goes both ways... unless one gives up and does nothing; accepts fate, and makes it easy for the other guy.

...like I said if you want to have a gun with you because it makes you feel save, I am fine with that.

I am pro-gun ownership—the right to it, but I have never owned a gun; nor ever really wanted one. I've had times when I needed one though, but didn't have it. My arguments before, were of people's right to own them in accordance with our Constitution; and for the reasons that the Constitution allows it.

...as my mother also almost killed my father once with an illegal weapon he brought home.

Sadly I remember hearing of a tourist here, from some years back, who shot his daughter through the wall of his travel bag, while rummaging to find something in it. This was on the sidewalk in the middle of town; as it happens, this was in front of a bar that I used to live above... though not at the time. Guns are (of course) not things to be careless with.

But thinking that everyone could be a potential thief trying to murder you for your wallet? Time to change the area and looking for a new home me thinks.

That would be being chased away.

 

[YeeCop]

Not at all. You may also be desperate. Or it may just be something you're very practiced at doing.

I think you're painting criminals differently than what they really are. Desperation does drive criminals to commit heinous crimes, just like the emotion of desperation drives men to do whatever they're desperate for. It doesn't mean they're any more clever.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Control (and lack thereof) goes both ways... unless one gives up and does nothing; accepts fate, and makes it easy for the other guy.

That would be being chased away

I'd say that your own wellbeing and, well, life, and of those around you matters more than that pseudo pride, but whatever.

I think you're painting criminals differently than what they really are. Desperation does drive criminals to commit heinous crimes, just like the emotion of desperation drives men to do whatever they're desperate for. It doesn't mean they're any more clever.

No even remotely intelligent person would get ditched by the system and become desperate enough to commit any crime right, oh wait...

 

[Lanfear]

It really does appear that you will choose the worst way to interpret anything I say. Who said anything about pointing a gun at on someone I suspect may present a threat to me?

I said that because the only alternative to seizing the role of the aggressor if avoidance is otherwise impossible (and if capitulation is undesirable) is to wait for the potential threat you've identified to move on you first before trying to draw your weapon in self-defense, which, again, invites a much greater risk of being wounded or killed by your assailant due to the fact that they will identify you as a potential threat to themselves the moment you make a move. I'm not deliberately interpreting what you say in the worst way, I just don't know what else you think that someone could do with a gun in a threatening situation.

The second best is the second best because all other options are that the assailant is armed, and the victim is not. You might be comfortable with submitting to the mercy of your attacker, but not everyone is so trusting—with reason, and not every attacker is merciful. You might actually and truly believe that a criminal wouldn't shoot you if they have gotten what they wanted from you, but you don't know if all they want is your wallet; and you don't even know if they are sane individuals... and yet you would council others to think of their insurance pay-off as a comfort in lieu of defending themselves.

No one is comfortable submitting to the mercy of their assailant, but you don't do it because it's comfortable, you do it because it presents the lowest statistical risk to your own life. Much lower than trying to draw a gun on someone who has a weapon trained on you.

I don't need a gun to take out the trash; (I did not say that I did). You have read what you want into it.
But I do not take out the trash oblivious to my surroundings.
I consider the very real fact that somebody looking for a target might be loitering in this block. I check.

This isn't really related to the argument, but your neighbourhood sounds like a complete nightmare if you are seriously concerned for your own safety right outside of your own front door. Then again, if the figures you quoted on your city's homicide rates are accurate, that would make it one of the most homicide-prone cities in the US.

I'd like not to. It was not meant literally... yet you are the one who asked me (in total seriousness) about the situation of being chained up to a wall. I had no idea what you were talking about... until you explained (that you had taken it literally).

I was pointing out that your reductio ad absurdum was not valid because there was no analogous absurdity in the situation I described. I wasn't taking it literally at all.

I have no qualm or quarrel here; we disagree, but that's the extent of it.

No, I'm not fussed either. I don't expect to change your mind, this is all just an exercise in discourse. Others reading this or similar debates may use them to decide which position is the more valid.

I think you're painting criminals differently than what they really are. Desperation does drive criminals to commit heinous crimes, just like the emotion of desperation drives men to do whatever they're desperate for. It doesn't mean they're any more clever.

I'm not painting them as anything more or less than people with the same highly variable range of cleverness, proficiency and motivation you would expect to find in people anywhere else. And I'm saying that assuming anything at all about one if they have you at a disadvantage is just putting yourself at an even greater disadvantage, because odds are good that you're very wrong, as people tend to be when they make assumptions about strangers.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I was pointing out that your reductio ad absurdum was not valid because there was no analogous absurdity in the situation I described. I wasn't taking it literally at all.

My mistake then. I was referring to these quotes:

Are you saying that someone chaining you to a wall and someone pulling a gun on you by surprise from a few metres away are equivalent?

But you're conflating the situation I posited, which is highly typical of a robbery, with a ridiculous situation that has no real relevance.

What situation is that? (What other situation are we talking about aside from your own aforementioned?)

The one where you're chained to a wall. Being attacked whilst chained to a wall and having someone assail you by surprise aren't in any way equivalent. One is very likely to happen, the other is never likely to happen.

 

[MutantScalper]

No, but there have been 22 murders in the city this year; and there were 157 last year.

Not at all, but you are. I just don't walk around oblivious. I don't ignore people.

I do not—but (again) you are making that assumption. It really does appear that you will choose the worst way to interpret anything I say. Who said anything about pointing a gun at on someone I suspect may present a threat to me?

*The second best is the second best because all other options are that the assailant is armed, and the victim is not. You might be comfortable with submitting to the mercy of your attacker, but not everyone is so trusting—with reason, and not every attacker is merciful. You might actually and truly believe that a criminal wouldn't shoot you if they have gotten what they wanted from you, but you don't know if all they want is your wallet; and you don't even know if they are sane individuals... and yet you would council others to think of their insurance pay-off as a comfort in lieu of defending themselves.

I am no longer surprised by this.

I don't need a gun to take out the trash; (I did not say that I did). You have read what you want into it.
But I do not take out the trash oblivious to my surroundings.
I consider the very real fact that somebody looking for a target might be loitering in this block. I check.

My back yard is open to anyone brazen enough to climb the fence. I've even had a lawn ornament —screwed two feet into the ground— stolen during a neighbors (unbearably loud) birthday party. A guy had actually asked to buy it the week before; I said, 'No', and the next week it was gone; and left a big hole in my yard, that I had fill.

I have a hooded jacket hanging out in the yard right now, daring the owner to return for it; I found it on my roof.
I saw the guy wearing it the day before I found it—when he and another were casing my yard from its perimeter, but I've not seen him since.

I'd like not to. It was not meant literally... yet you are the one who asked me (in total seriousness) about the situation of being chained up to a wall. I had no idea what you were talking about... until you explained (that you had taken it literally).

I have no qualm or quarrel here; we disagree, but that's the extent of it.

That is some effed up ish right there. However, if they were approaching your yard and you saw them and they'd step on your property unannounced and you fired a warning shot or whatever over their heads, you might go to jail for it even in USA.

Hey, I have an idea for an NMA photo competition. Whoever posts a pic of an intruder/thief/a-hole here first, wins. Prize? Glory.

 

[YeeCop]

I'm not painting them as anything more or less than people with the same highly variable range of cleverness, proficiency and motivation you would expect to find in people anywhere else. And I'm saying that assuming anything at all about one if they have you at a disadvantage is just putting yourself at an even greater disadvantage, because odds are good that you're very wrong, as people tend to be when they make assumptions about strangers.

Let me ask you something, if I may: would you say the same for a victim? If a criminal accosts an elderly woman with a knife and demands her valuables (he picks the elderly woman mainly because he perceives her as weak and an easy target), but little does he know the old woman will flash out her .32 pistol while fishing in her purse for whatever the criminal demands, would you say that the criminal is wrong for assuming the lady is at a disadvantage?

 

[Lanfear]

Let me ask you something, if I may: would you say the same for a victim? If a criminal accosts an elderly woman with a knife and demands her valuables (he picks the elderly woman mainly because he perceives her as weak and an easy target), but little does he know the old woman will flash out her .32 pistol while fishing in her purse for whatever the criminal demands, would you say that the criminal is wrong for assuming the lady is at a disadvantage?

This wouldn't happen unless the assailant was indeed a complete idiot. They would take the entire bag, not give their target a chance to produce a weapon. The assailant in your hypothetical was not wrong in assuming their target was at a disadvantage (she was - anyone forced into a posture of defense in a sudden confrontation is at a disadvantage), they were just unbelievably foolish for unnecessarily giving their target a chance to gain the advantage. That being said, the target in this hypothetical is still taking a chance on their assailant's ability to react to seeing a gun come out of a bag.