Oh, Chuck Norris. You Crack Me Up.

It’s been a while since I’ve bashed ol’ Chuck Norris, but his new column about how to prevent more church shootings is nothing short of hilarious. His answer is “more people should carry guns,” because of course it is. But then he blames Obama for…more people carrying guns!

When will Obama and other progressives learn that increasing government gun control and legislation won’t keep them out of the hands of bad guys? They will further disarm honest, good Americans who need that protection against murderous thugs like the parasite who walked into the Emmanuel AME Church.

Imagine once again, if just one of those Christians who held a Bible in their hand at that AME church also packed a pistol via a legal concealed weapons permit. Souls could have been saved.

If Obama really wants to reduce firearm power, he should consider stepping out of office, because his presidency has increased gun sales more than any other. As the management of gun maker Smith & Wesson just explained Friday, “We experienced strong consumer demand for our firearm products following a new administration taking office in Washington, D.C., in 2009.”

Gee Chuck, why do you think that is? Here’s a thought: Maybe it’s because of you and your fellow wingnut conspiracy mongers are continually screaming “HE’S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY” at the top of your lungs. Maybe it’s because you’ve all spent the last six years declaring him to be a Muslim Marxist terrorist sympathizer out to destroy America and round up all the Christians and put them into FEMA concentration camps. Gee, maybe that’s why people suddenly started buying guns in much higher numbers. And if you really think more guns is the answer, why hasn’t all that increased gun ownership prevented these things from happening?

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    And if you really think more guns is the answer, why hasn’t all that increased gun ownership prevented these things from happening?

    Obviously because not everyone is carrying a gun! What we need is a law mandating that all people carry a gun! … because FREEDOM!

  • Sean Boyd

    It should be in the top 10 Chuck Norris facts, right up there with counting to infinity twice: Chuck Norris can’t experience cognitive dissonance.

  • gshelley

    If more people had been armed, it is possible only 3 or 4 people wold have been killed before one of them was able to react and kill the shooter.

    I wonder where these people place the line between “that is too many” and “ah well, one of the consequences we have to accept if we want to allow widespread gun ownership”

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Imagine once again, if just one of those Christians who held a Bible in their hand at that AME church also packed a pistol via a legal concealed weapons permit. Souls could have been saved.

    Some SOULS could have been saved?? Wait, wasn’t it the BIBLE that saved their souls already? You mean with a gun, some LIVES might have been saved? Or did Dylann Roof kill their actual souls??

  • maddog1129

    Sez Chuck Norris, the guy who used unarmed martial arts instead of guns, and beat the gun toters every time on TV. Shouldn’t he be saying, “Now, if some of the church goers had only known karate!”

  • dingojack

    ‘Cause more guns would just make the situation just so much better

    @@ Dingo

  • marcus

    “Souls could have been saved.”

    Perhaps you mean lives could have been saved Chuck (though I doubt it would have made much difference).

    According to your mythology their “souls” were already saved by the circumstance of being taken up (murdered) in the act of worship.

    Can you not even get your own fucking religion right?

  • Doc Bill

    I am totally amazed by the number of nitwits who have commented in the media that if “only one of the congregation” had a gun the crime could have been shot.

    ORLY?

    We’re not talking about a well-trained, seasoned, experienced marksman Dallas traffic cop. We’re talking about the yahoos who carry around guns because they think they’re Wyatt Earp or something, you know, people like you and me who might get to a target range, if we can be bothered, once or twice a year.

    No, folks, we’re talking about a Barney Fife in the congregation who would probably fumble the safety. Is that brave soul going to stand up and face down a maniac with a 45, and get off a clean shot. No. This is not the movies. How many people were in the church? More than the 10 shot. If it’s so easy to “take action” in a situation like this why didn’t the churchgoers rush the gunman, especially when he reloaded five times?

    How many bullets does a 45 hold; six, nine? Did the shooter fire 30 to 45 shots and only hit 10 people? What chance would Barney Fife have to plug the gunman with his own skill level diminished by the adrenalin of the attack?

    No, I find disgusting these simplistic, childish, dishonest arguments by gun advocates that portray a “good guy with a gun” as some kind of John McClane.

  • scienceavenger

    …increasing government gun control and legislation won’t keep them out of the hands of bad guys

    Why not? It has in many countries that have 1/100th or less deaths from “bad guys” with guns. Or do you believe guns have some sort of magical power that every other banned object doesn’t have?

  • scienceavenger

    I am totally amazed by the number of nitwits who have commented in the media that if “only one of the congregation” had a gun the crime could have been shot.

    Its not that this specific scenario is implausible, its that it can’t be taken in isolation. More guns in that church at that time probably would have resulted in fewer deaths, even if the Barney Fifes shot a couple of innocents. But to make that happen it’d mean we’d need more guns everywhere all the time, since we don’t know where the next mass shooter will strike, and that would no doubt result in more deaths by orders of magnitude than those potentially saved in these isolated situations. Frame the question right: its not guns in the church or not, its guns everywhere or not.

  • gshelley

    @9

    I hadn’t thought of that. I wonder (though not very much) if he is consistent enough to apply this reasoning to drugs.

  • https://www.facebook.com/michael.latiolais.7 Michael Latiolais

    I’ll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5ccQeumcKQ

  • naturalcynic

    …increasing government gun control and legislation won’t keep them out of the hands of bad guys

    Unfortunately, that’s true. There are so many guns out there in ‘Murika now that anybody that really wants one will be able to find one or fifteen. Unless we get all totally altruistic and go like Australia and turn the guns in after a mass shooting. Like that would happen with the level of national paranoia we have.

  • busterggi

    Could the conservatives out there please point to even one law restricting gun ownership that this adminstration has put through?

    Didn’t think so.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Why do nearly all spree shootings happen in Gun Free Zones?

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/18/gun-free-zones-easy-target-for-killers.html

  • The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge

    Die, Egnor. Die.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Gun Free Zones (schools, churches, government buildings, some private businesses like movie theatres, etc) comprise a tiny fraction of spaces in America, but they seem to be the only places spree shooters choose to spree shoot. I wonder if the fact that a spree shooter knows that people in those locations are legally disarmed and can’t shoot back might have something to do with his choice of targets.

    GFZ’s seem to attract shooters like flame attracts moths. Could this be another liberal “solution” that makes things worse rather than better. Hard to believe, eh?

  • colnago80

    There are those who say that if Ronnie the rat had been packing heat when he was shot in 1981, he might have wasted his attacker, ole John Hinckley, before the latter could get off a shot.

  • colnago80

    Re #16

    Things must be quiet in the operating room on Long Island where ole Egnorance practices.

  • dingojack

    Military bases?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @dingo:

    Fort Hood was a Gun Free Zone, asshole. Ordinary soldiers are not allowed to carry loaded weapons on base for personal protection.

    Essentially all spree shootings in the US since 1950 have been in GFZ’s. Even a liberal with a tiny liberal brain ought to begin to see a pattern.

  • marcus

    scienceavenger @ 10 Precisely. Well said.

  • marcus

    Dumbassdog @ 21 See #10, you despicable POS.

  • sundiver

    Hey pukedog. Newsflash. a guy in Tucson ,strong>had a handgun in his pocket. He didn’t draw it because he feared he’d be shot by the police as an accomplice. The shooter was taken out by an unarmed man. More guns merely mean more danger from some fuckwad like you playing at Adam 12. Must someone’s lucky day that you’re here and not being an asshole to someone IRL. Assholes like you are why I hated working in hospitals.

  • dingojack

    Lil Dookie – “Gentlemen, gentlemen! You can’t fight here – this is the war-room!

    @@ Dingo

  • Doug Little

    So they really want to live in a society where you have to carry a gun for protection in one of the most intimate and sacred places a religious person can go. If only these fucking morons could stand back and look at themselves and what they have become, really you want people to carry firearms into church, WWFuckingJD.

  • amadan

    Of course, True Christians understand that Jesus only talked about smiting cheeks in Matthew 5:39. And Matthew 26:52 only applies to swords!

    So if that fucker pulls a Glock, every good NRA Jesus lovin’ preacher should let him have it smack between the eye. In fact, don’t wait to give him a chance: ventilate the bastard if he even looks cross-ways at you.

    Halelujah! Now everyone sing!

    … And they’ll know we are Christians by our guns, by our guns!

  • Doc Bill

    @10 Yeah, Avenger, I see your point and I agree; you’d need a good guy with a gun everywhere. My point is that the good guy with a gun is a lily-livered, chickenhearted, yellow bellied – keep going – like me. I would be useless. I haven’t been in a fight since the Third Grade. First aid I could do, after everybody is all shot up. I think I’m a pretty average Joe so arming me is really not doing anybody any good.

    Here’s a nice scenario to chew on: Waco. Who were the good guys? Depends on who you ask. To a Cossack the Banditos were bad and vice versa. Perhaps to the gangs the cops were bad. Perhaps an outsider would say everybody was bad. However, they were armed to the teeth and look what happened.

    I just don’t understand the “mo guns, mo bettah” argument.

  • dingojack

    Since Australia is one of those ‘gun free zonez’ you seem to be fretting over, there should be a slew of gun massacres, right?

    Oh wait! (Note the steep fall in rates after 1996).

    proportion of homicides with a gun.

    Dingo

  • Doug Little

    Yep lets give every household in the US and look at what would potentially happen by the numbers.

    in 2010 there were roughly 20,000 suicides and 600 accidental deaths by guns. This is with personal gun ownership at approx 1 in 3 and about 50% of households having a gun. So if spree shootings were stopped completely by increasing gun ownership to 100% you are going to have way more suicides and accidental deaths than could possibly be saved by reducing spree shootings to zero. OR we could do some comprehensive gun law reform and reduce all three just like they did in my home country.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Obviously if there had been someone in the congregation with a gun the likelihood is that fewer people would have died. If the church hadn’t been a gun-free zone, it’s quite possible that Roof wouldn’t have targeted it–he clearly sought out a gun free zone. He obviously knew nobody would or could shoot back in a church in a city that bans guns in churches.

    So here’s the story: a racist psycho who wrote a manifesto that is indistinguishable from the Democratic Party platform from 1820 to 1964 walks into a church that has been made a gun-free zone by liberal Democrats and kills nine people.

    Who’s to blame? Why, Republicans, of course!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Doug Knows-Little:

    Guns are virtually non-existent in Japan and in South Korea. Both countries have extemely strict gun control laws.

    Guns proliferate in the United States.

    The suicide rate in Japan is 50% higher than it is in the United States, and the suicide rate in South Korea is more than twice as high as it is in the United States.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

    So much for the gun-suicide correlation. Goodness gracious you liberals are morons.

  • Doug Little

    The suicide rate in Japan is 50% higher than it is in the United States, and the suicide rate in South Korea is more than twice as high as it is in the United States

    How many are caused by guns in those countries? How many more suicides would they have if guns were common?

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Obviously if there had been someone in the congregation with a gun the likelihood is that fewer people would have died.

    That’s only “obvious” in your childish cowboy-movie fantasies. Did you even bother to think of the possibility that once the guy who intended to kill people drew his gun, the other guy, who was NOT there to kill anyone, would have been unable to draw his gun before the would-be murderer shot him? Of course not — it never happens that way on TV, does it?

    In addition to being a victim-blaming bigot, you have no common sense.

    But on a lighter note, thank you for showing us how desperate you rednecks are to avoid seeing the connection between incidents like this and the Republican culture of guns, violence, and intolerance. It wasn’t a Democrat who first coined the phrase “Second Amendment remedy.”

  • Doug Little

    Here you go dickhead.

    Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S.; in 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting. Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) Moreover, guns are an irreversible solution to what is often a passing crisis. Suicidal individuals who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have time to reconsider their actions or summon help. With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/

  • dingojack

    Gun suicides in Japan per 100,000 = 0.04 (1999). Rate of licenced civilian firearms = 0.25/100 licenced owners.

    Gun suicides in South Korea per 100,000 = 0.02 (1994). Rate of licenced civilian firearms = 1.1/100 licenced owners.

    Gun-suicides in US per 100,000 = 5.95 (1999)*. Rate of licenced civilian firearms = 101.05/100 licenced owners.

    Dingo

    ———

    * 2013 = 6.07/100,000

  • dingojack

    For actual data*, see here.

    Dingo

    ———

    * unsullied by doggie dookies

  • Doug Little

    What an amateur this Egnor fella is. You would think that he sees his fair share brain trauma caused by attempted suicide with a firearm and does not care one wit about how it could be prevented, that’s a cold mother fucker right there.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    If Obama really wants to reduce firearm power, he should consider stepping out of office, because his presidency has increased gun sales more than any other.

    That’s reminiscent of blaming Al Gore for global warming denial. It’s always the Democrat’s fault somehow, even if the problem is the other side’s irrational hatred.

  • dingojack

    Suicides by all methods by country per 100,000.

    US: 12.06 1993, 10.46 1999, 13.02 2013

    South Korea: 9.48 1994, 12.63 1997

    Japan: 16.72 1992, 18.41 1997

    Dingo

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    It’s always the Democrat’s fault somehow…

    …especially when the Democrat is black. But the Republicans who hate the black President with such an obvious irrational passion are TOTALLY NOT ONE BIT RACIST, nosireebob. They have PERFECTLY RATIONAL REASONS for constantly demanding the black guy show his freedom-papers, and saying they’re forged whenever they see them.

  • scienceavenger

    Obviously if there had been someone in the congregation with a gun the likelihood is that fewer people would have died.

    Yeah, and if every person on the Titanic had packed a personal life raft, fewer people would have died. Are we then going to suggest all cruise passengers pack life rafts?

  • wreck

    “Obviously if there had been someone in the congregation with a gun the likelihood is that fewer people would have died.”

    Yeah, we really need 80-something year old ladies packing heat. That will solve the problem.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Obviously if there had been someone in the congregation with a gun the likelihood is that fewer people would have died.

    Remind me again how cops tend to treat black people with guns…?

  • Doc Bill

    Obviously if there had been someone in the congregation with a gun the likelihood is that fewer people would have died.

    It’s only “obvious” if you’re a child, think like a child, are a moron, idiot or a fact-free, willfully ignorant ideologue like DukeDog who has OBVIOUSLY never been confronted by a gun-weilding raciest fanatic in an Bible study class.

    Earth to Dog, get this through your thick skull, it’s not obvious at all for the reasons I laid out above which you totally ignored. We’re not talking about trained professionals in that church who would attempt to negotiate a solution to the crisis before shooting. We’re not talking about off-duty cops or former servicemen. The kinds of people Dog wants to be packing are people who think it’s cool to carry a gun. Like the Fonze but without the “Heyyyyyy.” (drops mic)

  • caseloweraz

    I think this study has been mentioned here before.

    Well, here it is again: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

  • NYC atheist

    @44 raging bee

    This. Let’s see how my man egnor hand waves it away. Our ignores it. Either way…

  • Doug Little

    On snap, Egnor is getting his ass handed to him, you think it will make a difference… Not a chance.

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Gun Free Zones (schools, churches, government buildings, some private businesses like movie theatres, etc) comprise a tiny fraction of spaces in America…

    I’m sorry, could you explain to us how many public gathering places exist that would not fit under the definition of schools, churches, government buildings, or private businesses? Last I checked, those pretty much cover nearly all spaces considered “public”.

  • howardhershey

    Let’s say that one of the 9 killed carried heat and was as well trained as the NYPD who, when confronted by an armed citizen in a crowd, not only killed him but wounded a number of bystanders. The shooter, like many of his ilk, was (at least initially) thinking he was on a suicide mission, which means that he would not likely have been deterred even if he knew there were armed people present (there have been such shooters at gun ranges — American Sniper, in gun stores, and in police departments and courthouses in recent memory, where there were certain to be guns and armed people present). Now, 1 to 9 odds are not insurmountable and it would be entirely possible for the shooter to have killed the only persons with a gun (I would shoot the young and males first) early on. The number of deaths likely would be minimally different although the order of killing might have been altered.

  • gshelley

    @Dukedog.

    You would need to compare mass shootings in schools where the pupils are allowed to carry weapons to schools where they are not, and even then, you would need to try and control for other factors that could be specific to the individual locations.

    If the numbers are large enough, you might be able to draw conclusions that shooters prefer to pick schools where the children will be unarmed

  • Zmidponk

    When will Obama and other progressives learn that increasing government gun control and legislation won’t keep them out of the hands of bad guys?

    With moderate gun control, that might actually be true, or might not, I really don’t know. However, if there was very strict gun control introduced, such as a complete ban on all guns, it would actually be the case that even people who couldn’t give a flying fuck about any gun controls would find it progressively harder and harder to obtain any guns until it became all but impossible. The reason? The vast majority of all illegally obtained weapons or illegally used weapons are not illegally smuggled into the US or illegally produced in the US. Instead, they are imported or produced in a 100% legal, authorised manner, then, by one method or another, leave the legal supply chain and become ‘black market’ guns, or, alternatively, are simply used for crimes by the last person to legally buy that particular gun. However, it is wildly unlikely that any such strict gun control will be introduced.

  • sabrekgb

    @8 Doc Bill

    No, folks, we’re talking about a Barney Fife in the congregation who would probably fumble the safety. Is that brave soul going to stand up and face down a maniac with a 45, and get off a clean shot. No.

    Doc, you’re making a weird statement here. It’s not a choice between some average person going up against a murderous racist and them not going up against a murderous racist; it’s a choice between them going up against a murderous racist armed or them going up against the murderous racist unarmed. You’re implying there is some sort of good outcome here, if only the victims remain unarmed…and i don’t follow that logic. Regardless of whether you like guns in general, surely we can agree that, all else equal, it’s better to be armed when a murderous racist attacks you thank unarmed.

    If someone choses to not be armed because they think they’ll be unable to make use of a weapon or do more harm than good, that’s fine. The point is to not take the choice away from others who don’t have that fear. Maybe they’re wrong and won’t be able to stop an attacker, but how is that worse than them being murdered anyway. At least they had a chance. And, at best, they stop the attacker. From my looking at the situation, the probability set of outcomes improves significantly when potential mass murder victims are able to fight back.

    @ 20 Dingojack

    Military bases

    Contrary to popular belief, military bases are indeed “gun free zones” for the purposes of these sorts of discussions. I can see why civilians might think otherwise, but it is completely not the case. The only people who are armed on base are the police, and those actually on the range at the time. No one else is allowed to have a weapon, especially not for personal defense. Doesn’t matter if you’re infantry, services, military, civilian, licensed or not…no guns. You might have dudes more likely to rush you, but you’re less likely to have people return fire than you would be if you chose a walmart to go berzerk in.

    @34 Raging Bee

    Did you even bother to think of the possibility that once the guy who intended to kill people drew his gun, the other guy, who was NOT there to kill anyone, would have been unable to draw his gun before the would-be murderer shot him? Of course not — it never happens that way on TV, does it?

    So what…? If he couldn’t draw before he was killed, how is that different from what happened anyway? Better to not have a lifesaving tool just because you might not use it in time? I don’t understand why you think this argument makes sense.

    To analogize: It’s like saying that you shouldn’t have an ejection seat in a plane, because the malfunction that causes you to crash might kill you before you can use it anyway.

    This is a silly argument. You are, in effect, saying that because there is a chance of failing, you shouldn’t even give yourself the means to try. This is wrong, both from a practical and a moral perspective.

    @42 scienceavenger

    Yeah, and if every person on the Titanic had packed a personal life raft, fewer people would have died. Are we then going to suggest all cruise passengers pack life rafts?

    That’s the wrong way to frame it. It would be better to say: Are we going to forbid cruise passengers from bringing their own small life-raft if they choose to?

    @ theDukedog7 generally:

    You make some good points, but you make them very poorly. This isn’t a Democrat/Republican thing or a Liberal/Conservative thing. Leaving aside that 1 dimensional political labels are stupid in general and practically useless as descriptors, your immediate jump to “liberals are stupid” sort of rhetoric undercuts any good points you might otherwise make. Talk about the issue. Talk about things relevant to the issue. Not everything need be politically divisive…division on the issue is enough. And saying things like, “a racist psycho who wrote a manifesto that is indistinguishable from the Democratic Party platform from 1820 to 1964 walks into a church that has been made a gun-free zone by liberal Democrats and kills nine people. Who’s to blame? Why, Republicans, of course!” is unhelpful, incorrect to the degree of deception, and just generally dumb. Quit that shit.

  • Electric Shaman

    sabrekgb @53 says

    “Regardless of whether you like guns in general, surely we can agree that, all else equal, it’s better to be armed when a murderous racist attacks you thank unarmed…From my looking at the situation, the probability set of outcomes improves significantly when potential mass murder victims are able to fight back.”

    Well, no, Doc Bill doesn’t have to agree with that. Basically what you are doing is saying that he is wrong and that he has to agree with you without providing any sort of new, substantiative argument to the debate. I happen to think that adding more guns to a situation, particularly in the hands of untrained people terrified for their lives, is not even remotely ideal. For example, in the case involving Jared and Amanda Miller in Las Vegas, after they shot and killed the two cops they went into a Wal-Mart and shouted for everyone to get out. The only person to die in that Wal-Mart, aside from the perpetrators, was one person who had a concealed gun and just like in your and Dukedog’s wet dreams, decided to confront Jared Miller. Our hero and saviour did not see Amanda Miller, who promptly walked up behind him and shot him to death.

    “The only people who are armed on base are the police, and those actually on the range at the time.”

    So, by your own admission, military bases are completely gun free zones except for those pesky cops who are armed professionals presumably trained to use firearms patrolling the base. Right. Good argument.

    “That’s the wrong way to frame it. It would be better to say: Are we going to forbid cruise passengers from bringing their own small life-raft if they choose to?”

    Oh who gives a shit. You can smugly nit-pick the merits of someone else’s framing all you want. The problem is mass shootings are a major problem in the US. No one wants to offer a solution that isn’t placing more restrictions on access to guns, which we know has worked in other parts of the world, but the US can’t do that because every American is a special snowflake and some of those special snowflakes need to have their guns for some reason. And while sabrekgb and his ilk continue to debate the proper way to frame a lifeboat analogy, the clock is ticking away until the next mass shooting.

    “@ theDukedog7 generally: You make some good points, but you make them very poorly.”

    If you hadn’t already lost all credibility, then that statement would surely do it on its own. You should really open with that so no one has to bother reading any further. theDukedog7’s reasoning and intellect are the equivalent of a dog chasing its own tail for hours on end.

  • Doc Bill

    @53 Soviet Sword

    My point is this. Untrained people like me may or may not rise to the occasion. I’m suggesting that on average most people won’t. My opinion is that leaders who rise to the challenge in a crisis are rare. The “Let’s Roll” guy on Flight 73 (memory here) during 9/11 is a rare example of a person who in an extraordinary situation motivated the passengers to attack the hijackers.

    That guy was not there in the Charleston church.

    I’m also suggesting that your thesis that an armed person has a “better chance” than an unarmed person is false. In fact, there are no statistics to support your thesis. Overwhelmingly, the people I know personally here in Texas who “carry” are knuckleheads in that they are untrained. Sure, they passed the test, but handling a gun safely and using a weapon in a crisis situation are two entirely different things.

    What you are projecting about having a “better chance” is a TV movie projection that does not reflect the reality of a crisis situation at all. Let’s put it in personal terms, Soviet Sword. I don’t want you in a restaurant with me carrying a gun. Why? Because I don’t trust that you are responsible or capable. In fact, I think you are dangerous and a menace to the rest of my fellow diners.

    Why? Because I have no evidence about you to the contrary. Think about that.

  • sabrekgb

    @54 Electric Shaman

    I happen to think that adding more guns to a situation, particularly in the hands of untrained people terrified for their lives, is not even remotely ideal.

    Ideal? Of course not. The idea is for there to be no violence of this kind. The ideal would be for there to be no violence of any kind in our society that necessitated the carrying of a weapon for self defense. But i believe that giving people the choice to have the means available to fight back is a good thing. If someone wants to go meekly to the slaughter, they may still do that…they’re just not forced to do so.

    or example, in the case involving Jared and Amanda Miller in Las Vegas, after they shot and killed the two cops they went into a Wal-Mart and shouted for everyone to get out. The only person to die in that Wal-Mart, aside from the perpetrators, was one person who had a concealed gun and just like in your and Dukedog’s wet dreams, decided to confront Jared Miller. Our hero and saviour did not see Amanda Miller, who promptly walked up behind him and shot him to death.

    This incident does not support your position. Here, the only person who got hurt was the one who was actively making a (heroic) choice to attempt to intervene. He got killed for his trouble, and didn’t accomplish his goal…but he didn’t hurt anyone else and knew exactly who his target was (albeit not knowing of the second target…bad SA). The common argument of people not recognizing the bad guy and creating a hail of gunfire that encompases innocents didn’t happen. People like him are less likely than police to shoot innocents in a situation like this, both because they are closer to the events instead of arriving after, and because they know they can’t hide behind immunity for any mistakes they make. This man made a choice, and it got him killed…but it was his choice.

    Also, quit with the “wet dream” shit. I don’t want things like these events to happen, and you’re a douchebag for implying it. I don’t want people to get flat tires, but i still suggest they carry a jack and a spare.

    So, by your own admission, military bases are completely gun free zones except for those pesky cops who are armed professionals presumably trained to use firearms patrolling the base. Right. Good argument.

    They’re armed. They’re professional in the same way that all military members are professionals. They’re not different other than some minor specific training and a different number on the specialty code paperwork. Military Police have consistently scored near the bottom at every range class i’ve been to. Some are crack shots, i’m sure, but clearly not the majority. You think everyone else isn’t trained to use firearms? What is it you think they are more “trained” or “professional” with than the hundreds of other infantry, or other military members around? How about everyone with “expert marksman” on their chest gets to carry? What is it you think makes them, or cops in general, the only ones who should be armed? I’m honestly curious, because you just seem to sneeringly assume it in the snipped above.

    Oh who gives a shit. You can smugly nit-pick the merits of someone else’s framing all you want.

    Good, thanks, i will…especially when the framing of the analogy misses a critical point. You didn’t address the point, you just tossed up your hands with it. Fine, we can drop the analogy, but the point was that the original one was fatally flawed.

    The problem is mass shootings are a major problem in the US.

    No, they’re really not. They’re rare events that represent a tiny portion of all people that are killed, even of all people that are killed with firearms, even of all people that are killed with firearms that don’t do it themselves. This is not a major problem. It’s a problem, i’ll grant, but it’s a more minor one, really. Diabetes…now that is a major problem.

    If you hadn’t already lost all credibility, then that statement would surely do it on its own.

    dukeDog is correct when he says that if someone in the congregation had the means and will to return fire, lives would likely have been saved. He is also correct about gun free zones. His political rhetoric is bullshit and his delivery sucks. He might be a case of being right for the wrong reasons even. If you disagree with my assessment, then let’s talk about the points of disagreement. I don’t know him from anyone, so i don’t really care what your opinion of him is.

    @55 Doc Bill

    My point is this. Untrained people like me may or may not rise to the occasion. I’m suggesting that on average most people won’t. My opinion is that leaders who rise to the challenge in a crisis are rare. The “Let’s Roll” guy on Flight 73 (memory here) during 9/11 is a rare example of a person who in an extraordinary situation motivated the passengers to attack the hijackers.

    Doc, I don’t disagree with you here. My point is, to give that “Let’s Roll” guy the fighting chance to actually succeed. If he knows himself and is willing to try…why make him and everyone else defenseless, when he might just stop the bad guy. Maybe he dies, maybe the plane crashes…but it was going to anyway. If it’s a choice between fumbling for a weapon and standing idly by waiting for your turn to be executed… Come on, it’s not right to tell someone that they aren’t allowed to defend themself. And just because you don’t think you would want to, or be able to, doesn’t mean there aren’t others of us out there who would, or who would at least try, like the above mentioned guy in Vegas.

    I’m also suggesting that your thesis that an armed person has a “better chance” than an unarmed person is false. In fact, there are no statistics to support your thesis.

    I would suggest that this goes under the heading of things that are so obvious as to not really need research…but i like research, and so would like to see it anyway. But here is the lie to it in any case: police. Why are they not unarmed? Clearly, in confrontations with armed people, it is better to be armed. I feel that it’s almost stretching the bounds of realism to not acknowledge this, but if you still don’t, i will endeavor to come up with more data.

    What you are projecting about having a “better chance” is a TV movie projection that does not reflect the reality of a crisis situation at all.

    That’s not true. High stress situations make things more difficult, sure, but that’s a silly reason to just give up and let yourself be murdered. Yes, your chances are better if you can return fire to your opponent than if you just cower and wait for him to come kill you. Further, it is immoral to tell people that they have to die like that.

    I don’t want you in a restaurant with me carrying a gun. Why? Because I don’t trust that you are responsible or capable. In fact, I think you are dangerous and a menace to the rest of my fellow diners.

    Why? Because I have no evidence about you to the contrary. Think about that.

    Ok, i thought about it. It’s not well thought out. You have no evidence that anyone you randomly come across in your day isn’t dangerous. That’s not how we analyze risk in society, though. We make a baseline, inductive assumption, and then adjust as more data is acquired. That’s one of the big benefits of society…your ability to make that “safe” baseline assumption.

    Additionally, your discomfort with my being armed is insufficient reason to preclude me from being so. I’m not actually any more dangerous to you, unless of course your intend myself or others harm, in which case i am more dangerous to you…and that’s a good thing.

    Eat your meal, and don’t worry. Other people are looking out for your safety, even if you don’t want to; people sitting nearby. Society is cool like that. Quit trying to make it less so.

  • caseloweraz

    Sabrekgb (#53):

    @34 Raging Bee

    Did you even bother to think of the possibility that once the guy who intended to kill people drew his gun, the other guy, who was NOT there to kill anyone, would have been unable to draw his gun before the would-be murderer shot him? Of course not — it never happens that way on TV, does it?

    So what…? If he couldn’t draw before he was killed, how is that different from what happened anyway? Better to not have a lifesaving tool just because you might not use it in time? I don’t understand why you think this argument makes sense.

    To analogize: It’s like saying that you shouldn’t have an ejection seat in a plane, because the malfunction that causes you to crash might kill you before you can use it anyway.

    This is a silly argument. You are, in effect, saying that because there is a chance of failing, you shouldn’t even give yourself the means to try. This is wrong, both from a practical and a moral perspective.

    You’re mistaken. What Raging Bee is saying is that the chance of the proverbial “good guy with a gun”* successfully reacting to the bad guy, who drew his gun first, is miniscule. You should read some studies, like the one I link to in #46.

    Yes, there are instances of the good guy (or gal) succeeding. One case I learned of a few days ago does involve a gal (Jeanne Amman, I think her name is) stopping a shooter in a church. Of course the circumstances were different: the shooter started firing outside; Jeanne heard the shots; being responsible for security in the church, she was both armed and trained; and she had time to prepare.

    It might be instructive for you to run a thought experiment: knowing what we do about the Dylann Roof case, imagine how any one of the nine (let’s say the 26-year-old man) would be able to draw a weapon and drop Roof.

    Take your time.

    As for your analogy, AIUI the chance of an ejection seat NOT being effective in case of a malfunction that causes the fighter to crash is miniscule. That is, the probability of success in this case is opposite to the one in the gun case.

    —-

    * No disrespect intended to Emily Miller

  • caseloweraz

    I probably should have written:

    —-

    * No disrespect intended to Emily Miller or Dana Loesch.

    Because nothing demonstrates the reality of the gun-confication campaign like a beautiful woman holding a formidable firearm, amirite?

    (I would have presented a third example, but that would have sent my comment into moderation limbo.)

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    …being responsible for security in the church, she was both armed and trained; and she had time to prepare.

    Yeah, that’s the crucial detail these gun-nuts always leave out of their fantasies: you don’t just have to carry a gun, you have to have both a certain amount of training and understanding (no, not just of how to hold and fire the gun), and you also have to have pre-assigned responsibilities — you can’t just walk into a situation and think you know what to do, or think everyone else knows what you’re supposed to do.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Whenever anyone, like Dukedog or sabrekgb, says that so-and-so is responsible for his own murder because he didn’t carry his own gun, what they’re really saying (whether or not they know or admit it) is that that victim should not have expected his society to protect him from violence. That’s the most basic purpose of ANY form of civil society, and the primary reason why people create and support civil societies (democratic or not): enforce a peaceful order so ordinary people would not HAVE to carry guns everywhere they go in their ordinary activities. To demand that ordinary people arm themselves to go about their everyday business, or be blamed for their victimization, is to reject the most basic values of civil society in favor of a purely animal, every-man-woman-and-child-for-himself situation. It is the grossest form of indifference (and, yes, bigotry) toward innocent lives, and toward the most basic obligations that social being have toward each other, the basic obligations that make us human and civilized.

    And the animalism of the gun-nuts’ victim-bashing is also reflected in the purely animal thought processes they bring, all of which amount to nothing more than a base unreasoning instinctive need to have a weapon in hand, and the purely emotional belief that gun=safety. As we’ve seen in just about every debate, the gun-nuts’ arguments are based on nothing but that emotion, and resist all reason, facts or documented experience.

    The CIVILIZED response to incidents like this is to pay more in taxes to hire, train and arm more cops, so they can have more presence and thus more chance of intervening EFFECTIVELY, instead of just shrugging and saying “we don’t care enough to cover their neighborhood, they shoulda had their own guns.” Also, a better-funded mental-health-care system would have had a better chance of preventing some of these shooters’ mental problems from going too far. But the same Republitarians who mindlessly support “gun rights” also bitterly, almost religiously, oppose nearly all civilized alternatives to the Wild West fantasies of the “gun rights” crowd.

    Let’s face it — the Republicans aren’t just the party of stupid, they’re the party of barbarism.

  • sabrekgb

    @60 Raging Bee

    First of all, fuck you for being a liar. Read what i say and respond to that, or don’t, but don’t lie and say that i said something i didn’t.

    Whenever anyone, like Dukedog or sabrekgb, says that so-and-so is responsible for his own murder because he didn’t carry his own gun

    Quote me where i said this, or where i even implied it, you deceptive liar.

    To demand that ordinary people arm themselves to go about their everyday business, or be blamed for their victimization

    I blamed no victim. I specifically said that people shouldn’t have to carry if they don’t want to. You are making a deceptive implications here. Stop it. Disagree in good faith or don’t play the goddamn game.

    Now, to content:

    what they’re really saying (whether or not they know or admit it) is that that victim should not have expected his society to protect him from violence

    Yes and no. I’ll elaborate:

    People should expect society to be reasonably safe and provide a reasonable amount of protection in the sense that that is a good goal to work for. It is not, however, a reasonable conception for how the world actually is. Let us not confuse is and ought. there is a second issue, though, and that is who is actually responsible for your safety. Do you expect society, as a general entity, to protect you from all danger? Is it solely society’s responsibility, or is it a shared responsibility? This is, at heart, a question about the amount of paternalisim versus the amount of freedom.

    I would like it if society was of such a character that violent acts like the church murders didn’t happen. I understand that it is not actually the case, and that things like that do happen, though. I even recognize that it may be the case that there is a certain amount of unavoidable violence or danger that comes as a consequense of certain amounts of freedom. Further, I accept that there is a certain minimal obligation that society owes its members to keep them safe, but that obligation is not absolute. The difference is that I do not choose to completely cede responsibility for my defense to third parties. Society is not solely responsible for my safety, I am responsible as well, by choice. Not everyone need make the same choice (though i think that having a certain percentage think and act as i do provides a general benefit to society as a whole…i don’t begrudge the free-riders), but I maintain that it is immoral to force a person to cede all responsibility for their defense. Not only are there practical downsides (like, occasionally, being unable to prevent your murder), but it removes the agency from that person. It takes away a portion of human dignity to deny them the fundamental choice to exercise the right of self-defense.

    Keep in mind that there is jurispruidential support for my position. SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no specific duty to you to keep you from harm. Their duty is a general one owed to society. Forcing people to have no option but to rely on someone for defense who has no duty to them specifically (and, often, simply is not in a position to prevent harm), is wrong. If you don’t want the means to defend yourself, that’s fine. I don’t think you should be forced to have them, or use them, or anything. I just don’t want mine prohibited. And, as a plus, i’ll defend the defenseless too.

    the purely emotional belief that gun=safety.

    I don’t believe that gun = safety. I believe that having the right tool available makes performing a task easier. A gun is one of the best tools for personal defense and defense of others that I can carry regularly. I’d carry a cop, but they’re heavy, unweildly, and expensive to rent.

    The CIVILIZED response to incidents like this is to pay more in taxes to hire, train and arm more cops

    Not a bad idea, i’m mostly for it, properly done. Here’s the thing, though: I don’t believe in caste systems. There is nothing fundamentally different about a cop that allows them to do the things they do than other comparable people. If i can defend myself, why should I not? I am able to use every tool the cop does, I am able to be sufficiently proficient in their application, I am able to understand the law, and i have the singular advantage of always being where I am, while a cop only infrequently is.

    Also, a better-funded mental-health-care system would have had a better chance of preventing some of these shooters’ mental problems from going too far

    Agreed. We definitely need a better mental health system. And medical care in general, universally available. These things are not mutually exclusive of not prohibiting people from defending themselves, though…they can all be done in addition to it.

    Let’s face it — the Republicans aren’t just the party of stupid, they’re the party of barbarism.

    That’s the kind of dumb political bullshit dukedog was spouting earlier and was rightly chastized for. You might want to reconsider those stones you’re throwing in that pretty glass house of yours.

  • Electric Shaman

    Ideal? Of course not. The idea is for there to be no violence of this kind. The ideal would be for there to be no violence of any kind in our society that necessitated the carrying of a weapon for self defense.

    Many people in this thread have been kind enough to link to studies for those who may want to actually learn something about how other countries around the world have handled gun control and their comparable rates of gun violence. There are countries around the world that look at the United States with ever growing awe and disbelief that these types of attacks continue to happen yet nothing happens about gun control. I already live in a society where I have no need to walk around with a gun in order to defend myself. It’s called Australia.

    This incident does not support your position. Here, the only person who got hurt was the one who was actively making a (heroic) choice to attempt to intervene. He got killed for his trouble, and didn’t accomplish his goal…but he didn’t hurt anyone else and knew exactly who his target was (albeit not knowing of the second target…bad SA).

    Yes, yes it does support my position. Just because you change the goalposts to suit your needs does not make it so. All I said was adding more guns to a situation is a very bad idea. The Millers instructed the people to leave and they won’t get hurt. This guy decides not to leave, pulls a gun, and ends up getting killed. All he had to do was leave, let the cops do their jobs, and he would be alive today. Your comment about “bad SA” just proves my point further. This guy had no idea what he was doing, mistakenly thought having a gun made him a hero and as such was acting heroically, and now he’s dead.

    Also, quit with the “wet dream” shit. I don’t want things like these events to happen, and you’re a douchebag for implying it. I don’t want people to get flat tires, but i still suggest they carry a jack and a spare.

    No, I will continue using it thank you because I find it to be apt to describe the mindset of people who sound like they are chomping at the bit for an excuse to be John McClane one day.

    They’re armed. They’re professional in the same way that all military members are professionals. They’re not different other than some minor specific training and a different number on the specialty code paperwork. Military Police have consistently scored near the bottom at every range class i’ve been to. Some are crack shots, i’m sure, but clearly not the majority.

    Ok, we’re changing the goalposts again. Let me explain to you the series of events that lead to this little discussion on military bases. theDukedog7 made a comment about how these massacres only happen in gun free zones. DingoJack replied with a two word question, “military bases?”. You explained to us simpletons that military bases are completely gun free zones, except for the police there. So I was pointing out that by your own admission, a shooting had occurred at a non-gun free zone. I made no comment about how good of shots they are, simply that they are presumably trained to not only use firearms but to handle crisis situations, which the your typical gun toting citizen is not.

    You think everyone else isn’t trained to use firearms? What is it you think they are more “trained” or “professional” with than the hundreds of other infantry, or other military members around? How about everyone with “expert marksman” on their chest gets to carry? What is it you think makes them, or cops in general, the only ones who should be armed? I’m honestly curious, because you just seem to sneeringly assume it in the snipped above.

    So which is it? Military bases are, despite there being plenty of trained military personnel around, gun free zones albeit with, in your own words, cops who can’t shoot; or, is every person stationed there an armed professional and ready to shoot anyone who comes in looking for trouble? I’m having a lot of trouble following your point here. However I do see from your defensiveness that you are likely one of those people hankering for your John McClane day. And to answer your questions, yes, I see no reason why citizens should be walking around with concealed weapons.

    Good, thanks, i will…especially when the framing of the analogy misses a critical point. You didn’t address the point, you just tossed up your hands with it. Fine, we can drop the analogy, but the point was that the original one was fatally flawed.

    Yes, I do throw up my hands at this bullshit. You know why? People like you parrot the same arguments smugly as if they are new or profound, and obfuscate the debate with tactics like this and it gets just too damn tiresome.

    No, they’re really not. They’re rare events that represent a tiny portion of all people that are killed, even of all people that are killed with firearms, even of all people that are killed with firearms that don’t do it themselves. This is not a major problem. It’s a problem, i’ll grant, but it’s a more minor one, really. Diabetes…now that is a major problem.

    This old chestnut of an argument, and the more I see it the more disingenuous it gets. Welp, everyone pack up and go home. Sabrekgb has decreed that gun violence in the United States is not a problem because sabrekgb feels there are more important things to worry about. Move along everyone.

    First of all, fuck you for being a liar. Read what i say and respond to that, or don’t, but don’t lie and say that i said something i didn’t.

    Whenever anyone, like Dukedog or sabrekgb, says that so-and-so is responsible for his own murder because he didn’t carry his own gun

    Quote me where i said this, or where i even implied it, you deceptive liar.

    Why, you implied it right here:

    If someone wants to go meekly to the slaughter, they may still do that…they’re just not forced to do so.

    I just hope that if I ever have to face a person intent on shooting a bunch of people, I sure hope I have you next to me. From what I can tell, you are real life action movie hero just waiting for your time to shine. But in any case, I can’t be bothered to respond to the rest of your many posts, I have confronted enough of your drivel for one morning.

  • sabrekgb

    @57 caseloweraz

    You’re mistaken. What Raging Bee is saying is that the chance of the proverbial “good guy with a gun”* successfully reacting to the bad guy, who drew his gun first, is miniscule. You should read some studies, like the one I link to in #46.

    I’m not mistaken…I disagree that the chance is “miniscule”, but in any case, some chance > no chance. Bee said that since bad might happen (or was likely to happen) anyway, why even try. I don’t think that’s a good argument to keep people from the means to defend themself.

    In regards to the VPC paper you linked to…it’s very suspect. First, the FBI numbers for “justifiable homicide” are pulled from voluntary reporting, and don’t encompass many agencies…including all of NY. Further, the numbers are from initial reports only, not updates. If a person is arrested for killing someone, then acquitted at trial using a self-defense argument, the numbers reported are not updated. The bigger problem i have with it is not the justifiable homicide part, but the overall defensive gun uses portion, which is a far more important measure of the use of firearms to defend one’s self than just reported killings of attackers. Why is it more important? Because these incidents would be examples of preventing crime, not just responding to it. The VPC paper criticizes defensive gun use estimates by relying on a single paper…and doesn’t consider the responses made to that paper’s raised criticisms. There is flawed methodology in play.

    That said, even if the numbers were accurate, which they aren’t…it’s still immoral to prevent people from being able to defend themselves, and even VPC concedes that it does happen.

    It might be instructive for you to run a thought experiment: knowing what we do about the Dylann Roof case, imagine how any one of the nine (let’s say the 26-year-old man) would be able to draw a weapon and drop Roof.

    I’m not aware of many tactically pertinent facts. If you are, feel free to share. It need not be one of the 9 killed, as i understand there were 3 survivors as well. Very unlikely the first victim or second would have had any time to react. Others, perhaps, though. I simply don’t know enough detail to game it out. That same lack of detail makes it impossible to say that someone on scene wouldn’t have been able to stop him. And, here is the kicker…even if someone had been armed, and failed to stop him…how are they worse off? They are still dead. Better a slim chance than none at all.

    As for your analogy, AIUI the chance of an ejection seat NOT being effective in case of a malfunction that causes the fighter to crash is miniscule. That is, the probability of success in this case is opposite to the one in the gun case.

    You understand incorrectly. There are many occasions when a seat won’t (or might not) save you that cause the aircraft to crash: being out of the envelope (delayed decision/vvi/position, etc.) during a controlled flight into terrain, violent mid-air collision, catastrophic structural failure (especially during maneuvering), weather, destruction by enemy action. The point is, just because it might not work, doesn’t mean we should just not carry it. Just because having a gun might not save you, doesn’t mean we should just not carry it. Relative likelihood of events is not the sole variable. Not only is there the practical value of possibly being useful to save your life, there is the moral value of having it. Pilots like knowing they have a backup plan, if needed. People in general like knowing they have a backup plan, if needed. Carrying a firearm is not a primary plan, it is a backup. A contingency measure, just in case society fails and doesn’t protect us like Bee (and I) wants it to.

  • Michael Heath

    sabrekgb writes:

    . . . in any case, some chance > no chance.

    Yep, but the best arguments for gun control are not about “any case”. Instead those arguments in reference to the totality of cases where the volume varies by culture and public policy.

    Say you’re granted increased odds of successful self-defense in “any case”. Does a culture where far more people carry guns for self-defense increase or decrease the odds a gun-carrying individual will be a victim of gun-related crime over time?

    We’ve already empirically validated that the odds go up enormously they’ll be far more cases when the supply of guns goes up. So is there a marginal benefit or instead a marginal cost to increasing one’s odds of self-defense in one case, while simultaneously increasing the odds of being a victim of more overall cases? That’s why experts in this field don’t look at a singular case but instead, populations.

    As almost always, a single ‘case’ can hardly ever be extrapolated into a representational argument about a large population of ‘cases’.

  • Michael Heath

    sabrekgb writes:. . . in any case, some chance > no chance.

    This argument is eerily similar to some secular yuppie libertarians who reason themselves into denying their children vaccinations. They perceive the odds of their children suffering from side effects is greater than contracting the disease given that the immunity of the rest of the herd.

    So they idiotically attempt to exploit that situation by not having their kids immunized. Idiotic because they fail to realize that meme will spread and when more people also don’t have their children vaccinated, we lose our collective immunity to a large enough degree their unvaccinated kids become even more susceptible to a far worse outcome than mere side effects.

  • sabrekgb

    @62 Electric Shaman

    Many people in this thread have been kind enough to link to studies for those who may want to actually learn something about how other countries around the world have handled gun control and their comparable rates of gun violence.

    Ban guns, less guns used for violence. It’s overly simplistic, but let’s assume it’s true. The problem is that it’s not gun violence that is the problem…it’s violence in general, regardless of the tool used. Other countries are different, and the claim that just banning guns will solve the problem is grossly over-simplified thinking, and i’m not convinced it’s accurate. See: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847 as a counter to you, close to home.

    All I said was adding more guns to a situation is a very bad idea.

    The outcome shows that it was, at worst, a neutral idea for everyone except the one person who made the decision. He took a risk, and it didn’t pay off…that sucks. You’ll notice that no one else got hurt because of it, though…so those types of arguments don’t apply. In that case, all we can say is that maybe it was a bad idea for him to do it. Ok, fine. But it was his choice. Are you going to prevent him from risking his life to save others? Would you make it against the law for someone to jump in after a drowning person, because they might fail in their rescue and drown too? Saying you wouldn’t do the same, or that he was dumb for doing what he did is fine…but it’s not your place to tell someone they can’t try and save other people. What if it hadn’t been strangers he was trying to save, what if it had been friends? Family? At what point is it ok to risk your life to save another? Adding a gun to this situation didn’t cause any harm that wasn’t freely risked. No, your point is not supportive.

    No, I will continue using it thank you because I find it to be apt to describe the mindset of people who sound like they are chomping at the bit for an excuse to be John McClane one day.

    Then you’re being dishonest, and an asshole. I’m telling you right now that I hope i am never in a situation like that. I hope I never have cause to use a weapon in self defense. I hope that i come to the end of my life and think that i was silly for carrying around an extra pound of metal and polymer all that time, because it turns out i never needed it after all. If you think i’m chomping at the bit, then you’re not listening and you’re projecting your own biases on to me. I’ve had enough combat, thanks.

    So I was pointing out that by your own admission, a shooting had occurred at a non-gun free zone.

    Ok, I see the problem here. You don’t understand what is meant when people are referring to “gun free zones”. It’s not an area that is actually devoid of guns, it’s a defined zone in which it is legally prohibited for anyone except a police officer to carry a gun. This is the commonly accepted meaning of the term here, and perhaps its something you missed not being from the US. In that sense, a military base is in fact a quintissential “gun-free zone”. The problem with these zones is that the prohibition is legal only, not physical. There is nothing physically preventing me from entering a gun-free zone with a gun. I (and others) don’t, because we obey the law. Someone intent on murder, by definition isn’t planning on obeying the law, and so such a legal rule to keep guns out has no effect on them. In essence, a gun free zone only disarms those who obey the law…and it advertises the fact that all law-obeying (non cop) people within it are unarmed. This makes such places attractive for spree killers, and denies the right of self defense to law-abiding people.

    However I do see from your defensiveness that you are likely one of those people hankering for your John McClane day. And to answer your questions, yes, I see no reason why citizens should be walking around with concealed weapons.

    No, dude, i don’t want to be John McClane. I don’t like being shot at. I’d rather i’m shot at than my friends or family, though. And if i have no choice in the matter of being shot at, i’d much rather return fire than simply find cover and wait for my turn to die.

    Citizens should be walking around with (concealed) weapons because (i) they have a right to defend themselves, if they choose to exercise it, and (ii) it provides incentive for those who would prey on others not to, because they may not be attacking a defenseless victim. This is not an exhaustive list, but it is a sufficient one.

    Sabrekgb has decreed that gun violence in the United States is not a problem

    Don’t twist my words. I said that “mass shootings” are not a “major problem in the US”. They’re not. They’re a problem, but they’re not a very big one, all things (numbers) considered.

    you implied it right here

    No, i didn’t imply that any of the victims were responsible for their own murder, and fuck you and Bee both for being liars about it. I said that if someone makes the choice to not defend themself, then i respect that. I don’t agree with it, and i would not make the same choice. I’m not a pacifist, and i don’t approve of the philosophy, but if someone literally would not kill to prevent their murder, then i would not force them to…and i wouldn’t ever say that they were responsible for their own murder. The responsibility lies squarely with the murderer. If you go the slaughter meekly or fighting like hell…it’s still the murderer’s fault.

    I just hope that if I ever have to face a person intent on shooting a bunch of people, I sure hope I have you next to me. From what I can tell, you are real life action movie hero just waiting for your time to shine.

    Snark or no, I hope that if such a time ever comes (and i hope that it does not), you do in fact have someone next to you who will defend you. That person may wear a uniform, or they may not. I’m not an action hero, but i am a combat vet. There is nothing glamorous about life or death situations. I refuse to bury my head in the sand, though, and I will not cede my self defense (or the defense of my loved ones or the innocent around me) wholly to another. We are all part of society. If society is responsible for our protection, then we are all responsible for protecting each other at some level. I’m ok with being prepared to take up that responsibility, if need be.

  • sabrekgb

    @ Michael Heath

    Regarding your marginal cost argument…it’s an interesting question. Remember, it’s not “gun crime” i’m concerned about, it’s crime in general, especially violent crime. I’m less concerned about the tool used to commit violence than the violence in general. The US has more guns and more gun crime, yes. If we were sure that getting rid of the guns would reduce crime/violent crime, instead of just the portion of crime/violent crime committed with guns, then that’s worth considering. We aren’t sure of that, though. For all the talk of Australia in this thread, their gun law restrictions didn’t actually reduce the violent crime rate. There is no corresponding drop. Fewer guns used? Yeah, it seems so. Fewer violence committed? Nope, doesn’t look like. The trend lines aren’t significantly affected.

    This all doesn’t address the moral argument either. I still contend that it is not moral to deprive someone of the means to effectively defend themself.

    It’s interesting you brought up vaccines in regards to this issue, considering that guns confer their own sort of “herd immunity”. I’d contend that the analogy is much more applicable with the person with the gun as a vaccinated individual than the other way around. You’re familiar with the differing rates of home invasion while the home is occupied between the US and the UK? Prime example of the sort of effect i’m talking about. Concealed carry likely has a similar effect (or, at worst, doesn’t make things worse).

    I’m not saying we shouldn’t get vaccinated, i’m saying that more people being vaccinated will keep the disease from spreading as easy. You’re just confusing what’s the vaccine and what’s the disease. Violence, crime, and the impudence of those who prey on others…that’s the disease we are working against, not guns.

  • sabrekgb

    Also, to pre-empt misinterpretation of my position, the last point i made is not saying that the solution to violence and crime is guns. It’s not. That’s far too simplistic a thought. The solution to crime and violence is a lot more holistic and relies primarily on reduction of poverty, better education, better medical (including mental health), and other things. Guns are tools. Tools that can be used for self-defense, and in acute situations of crime and violence, they are good things to have available (assuming you have the will and ability to use them).

  • Anri

    The only thing I haven’t figured out is how to let the other gun-toters around me know that I’m not the bad guy when I’m shooting someone. Unless I am, of course.

    And I’m not really sure how they’re gonna let the other gun-toters around them know that they’re not the bad guy when they’re shooting me. Unless they are, of course.

    I mean, obviously, I’ll know who the bad guys are, because there’ll have a red outline, like in an FPS. Otherwise, I might have a hard time figuring out which of the people around me with guns out were the bad guys.

    I just have to remember if, in a room full of armed strangers, the idea is to be the first to fire, or the last.

    I should write the answer down somewhere.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Guns are tools…and in acute situations of crime and violence, they are good things to have available (assuming you have the will and ability to use them).

    That’s what a lot of Republican hacks say about torture: they can’t produce one speck of evidence that it actually works, or even does more good than harm — but we can’t ever get rid of it because it just feels good for them to have that tool at hand.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no specific duty to you to keep you from harm. Their duty is a general one owed to society.

    Citation required.

  • dingojack

    Mr Raging Bee (#71) – how about: “A policeman’s job is not to create disorder, a policeman’s job is to maintain disorder” 😉

    sabrekgb (#63) – the only problem with the ‘guns are tools that can save lives’ is the unspoken corollary: ‘it is pretty hard by kill someone by gunshot , without a gun‘.

    In 2011 the FBI reported 12664 homicides, of these 8583 involved guns generally (67.77%) and 6220 involved handguns specifically (49.11%). The next most common weapon was a knife (or other cutting instrument), involved in 1694 homicides (13.3% of all homicides). Therefore homicides by handguns occurred 3.67 more frequently than with knifes, those using guns (generally) occurred 5.07 times more frequently than knifes.

    Dingo

  • sabrekgb

    @ Raging Bee

    The case I had specifically in mind was Warren v. D.C. (1981), 444 A.2d 1, but that isn’t (as I had thought) a SCOTUS case. My mistake on that part, but it’s still a persuasive authority (D.C. Circuit).

    A SCOTUS case that does make the point, though, is Town of Castle Rock v Gonzales (2005), 125 S.Ct. 2796, a 1983 (civil rights) action in which “police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to [Gonzales’] repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children.” No liability was found.

    Equating lawful self defense with firearms to torture is a bit…weak. Obviously it’s trying to be a bit insulting by making an insinuation of a connection, but even strictly from anology, it’s not a direct comparison. You say that for torture there is not a speck of evidence that it works…but we know that’s not true for firearms for self defense. How do I know this? Well…thousands of anecdotes (not the singular of data, but still), significant numbers of defensive gun uses (even if you discount most of them, you must admit to some existing), and the fact that we have our police officers armed. Clearly, guns are effective for self defense, at least sometimes.

    @69 Anri

    Your strawmanning of the problem and the thinking that would go into it is not actually helping the conversation. You could actually be raising a legitimate question about the proper way to act when faced with a situation in which defensive firearms use is required. But, you totally miss the opportunity and instead try to pantomime your assumed opponent’s (obviously) mentally challenged thought processes. Cool story, bro.

    How about we look at the behaviors exhibited? How about we look at the attendant circumstances? How about we examine each situation individually and then act as a prudent, reasonable person would? Police officers all have guns…how do they avoid shooting each other when there are more than one on the scene? What if they’re plain clothes? Different agencies? What…you mean it’s not actually that silly of a problem like you make it out to be? Not a common problem for CCW-ers either?

    And, you also seem to assume that, even if it’s a big problem (which, it isn’t as big as you think), that the existence of problems to be addressed automatically makes the answer: just don’t let people carry guns. The one does not directly follow from the other. At best (and i don’t think you even have this), you have a small piece of evidence to throw into the ring for your position.

    @72 Dingojack

    Dingo, I completely agree that it’s hard to kill someone by gunshot absent a gun. I don’t think that’s the question, though. I’m not concerned with method, so much as I am with crime/violence in general. Is that gunshot in someone who was trying to rob someone? If so, then it’s not nearly as bad as one in someone who was being robbed. Context matters…a lot. And those numbers are absent it. What I get from that is that if you want to kill someone, in the US, chances are you’ll use a gun. I agree with that. That data does not support a position that carrying a gun for self defense is wrong. If anything, you could make a slight argument that the numbers indicate that it’s better to carry a gun than a knife. Pretty sure you’re not making that argument…and so the data you have posted, as you’ve posted it, doesn’t really address your position.

  • Anri

    sabrekgb @ 73:

    Your strawmanning of the problem and the thinking that would go into it is not actually helping the conversation. You could actually be raising a legitimate question about the proper way to act when faced with a situation in which defensive firearms use is required. But, you totally miss the opportunity and instead try to pantomime your assumed opponent’s (obviously) mentally challenged thought processes. Cool story, bro.

    Sorry, I thought we were talking about preventing people from getting killed by bad guys by using guns… which would of course, require not defensive but preemptive use of said guns.

    How about we look at the behaviors exhibited? How about we look at the attendant circumstances? How about we examine each situation individually and then act as a prudent, reasonable person would? Police officers all have guns…how do they avoid shooting each other when there are more than one on the scene? What if they’re plain clothes? Different agencies? What…you mean it’s not actually that silly of a problem like you make it out to be? Not a common problem for CCW-ers either?

    Unless you’re making the argument that every person police shoot are automatically bad guys, you’re making the opposite argument – that even with substantial training, police shoot the wrong people sometimes.

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed the law enforcement when doing multiple-agent armed actions tend to wear clothes with huge, obvious lettering saying just exactly who they are. They don’t do that to tell the crooks who’s FBI and who’s local, y’know?

    As far as undercover officers go, exactly how much would you like to wager on undercover cops having never been shot by uniformed officers, or other undercover cops? Remember, these people have typically been briefed as to each other’s presence. What briefings on gun wielders do you expect when going to a restaurant?

    And, you also seem to assume that, even if it’s a big problem (which, it isn’t as big as you think), that the existence of problems to be addressed automatically makes the answer: just don’t let people carry guns. The one does not directly follow from the other. At best (and i don’t think you even have this), you have a small piece of evidence to throw into the ring for your position.

    One of the major reasons it isn’t a serious problem is that (thankfully) CCW carriers are still comparatively rare. I’m not sure why people assume the problem would get smaller if more people carried.

    Most CCW proponents love to go on and on about this tactical situation versus that tactical situation, but in the end, the basic questions boil down to: how often would you expect to shoot the wrong person? How often would you expect someone to mistakenly shoot you?

    To put it another way, if you had two guns, would you give one to a random stranger?

    If not, why not?

    If I had two guns, should I give one to a complete stranger?

    If not, why not?

  • sabrekgb

    @74 Anri

    Sorry, I thought we were talking about preventing people from getting killed by bad guys by using guns… which would of course, require not defensive but preemptive use of said guns.

    Ok, then we need to differentiate between what defensive means versus pre-emptive. The recent war with Iraq notwithstanding, I actually think there is a world of difference. I would not use the word pre-emptive for what i have in mind as legitimate self-defense uses, but this may just be a semantical issue. One may fire, defensively, even prior to someone else firing, if the circumstances are such as to reasonably evince someone is threatening or immediately about to effect unlawful deadly force. This can be defense of third parties. An example: Seeing a convenience store clerk being held up at gunpoint. You would be reasonable to fire on the armed robber, despite him not having fired first. I would consider this “defensive”, not “pre-emptive”. To me, pre-emptive has flavors of acting before there is immediate threat. Maybe that’s not how you intended the word. By all means, toss out definitions for us to work with, if you like. I think it’s a (minor) semantic issue in any case.

    Unless you’re making the argument that every person police shoot are automatically bad guys

    Nope. And they fuck up…a lot. But…we still let them have guns, no? In fact, law-abiding citizens are less likely to fuck up than the cops in regards to shooting the wrong person[1]…probably because they know that they have no immunity if they get it wrong and they tend to practice marksmanship more than police on the average. The point is, yes, accidents may (and probably will) happen, but we’ve already accepted a higher rate of the same thing with cops…so this isn’t a novel, unprecedented, or large problem.

    One of the major reasons it isn’t a serious problem is that (thankfully) CCW carriers are still comparatively rare. I’m not sure why people assume the problem would get smaller if more people carried.

    I disagree that this is the reason it’s not a serious problem. The rate of fuckups like this for CCW-ers is lower than for police. More CCW-ers (assuming the same “quality”), would change the absolute number, but not the rate. It would have other benefits as well that very likely make up for the increase in absolute numbers. I don’t actually care all that much about the number of people carrying going up too much. I think one of the primary “herd immunity” benefits occurs at around a 5% penetration (punny!) rate, but i just pulled that number out of my bum. I also don’t want people carrying who don’t have the desire or confidence to do so properly. I don’t want everyone carrying, I just don’t want those (law-abiding) who want to to be prohibited from doing so.

    Most CCW proponents love to go on and on about this tactical situation versus that tactical situation, but in the end, the basic questions boil down to: how often would you expect to shoot the wrong person? How often would you expect someone to mistakenly shoot you?

    Tactical masturbation…yeah, it’s a thing. a couple of things, actually, depending on context…

    I expect myself to shoot the wrong person, statistically, never. I fervently hope that my days of shooting at or being shot at are over. I think it’s probable, given my demographic and statistics in general, that I never have cause to fire my weapon. If i do, i am very unlikely to fire at the wrong person. Subjectively, i think i am less likely than the average, given what i know about me, but even taking the general stats into account, it’s almost certain that the probability of misapprehension multiplied by the probability of actually having to fire my weapon rounds to zero. Similar calculus likely applies to my personally being shot at (depending on some future job prospects, of course). Assuming i do get shot at, though, i think the chance is something like 4%. I’d prefer it was lower, but it’s still not bad. And better than if the cops were shooting at me (11%).

    Something to consider, though: If i shoot the wrong person, i am going to prison. I know this. It makes me even more careful. This doesn’t apply to police.

    To put it another way, if you had two guns, would you give one to a random stranger?

    If not, why not?

    If I had two guns, should I give one to a complete stranger?

    If not, why not?

    Insufficient detail given. What is the situation? If there is a threat, and i have 2 guns, then yes, i’d give one to the stranger. 2 defenders is better than 1, and I can assume that he is more likely to not be a threat to me himself. If there is no threat? Then maybe i keep both guns for myself and now have a monopoly on force. Don’t really want a monopoly on force, but *shrug* we don’t have enough details.

    If you have 2 guns, same calculus applies, with the exception that (because you’re not me), i definitely think you should give the other one away, even absent an external threat. Now there is balance of power. Very european. Plus, i like egalitarianism in general, and lack of a monopoly on force helps keep some animals from being more equal than others.

    I admit, i’m not entirely sure where you’re going with this last bit.

    1. http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm#145

  • sabrekgb

    I just noticed that the rate i put for accidental shooting of an innocent by a citizen intervening in crime was double what i intended to put: 2%. And that seems a conservatively high estimate, according to the cited source.

  • StevoR

    @ Duke’s Dog’s Shit : You have failed to answer the questions asked of you here :

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/06/27/chief-justice-roberts-dissent/#comment-434877

    and run away again, you pitiful stinking creationist coward. This has not gone unnoticed nor will it.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    First of all, fuck you for being a liar.

    I am not lying, and I stand by my every word (though I do apologize for not responding sooner). I was referring to people LIKE you — as in, people who automatically think that some (not always specified) “good guy with a gun” would have prevented whatever senseless act of violence is in the headlines this week, if only he’d had the will and the peacepussies hadn’t tied him down. And yes, people of your mindset have indeed blamed the victims, like the pastor most recently buried, for not being armed at the time they were shot dead.

    But i believe that giving people the choice to have the means available to fight back is a good thing. If someone wants to go meekly to the slaughter, they may still do that…they’re just not forced to do so.

    Right — you don’t advocate requiring people to carry guns; but you’ll just ridicule them and call them sheep when they get murdered. So yes, you ARE blaming the victims for not carrying guns; and it’s no better than blaming rape-victims for showing too much skin.

    It takes away a portion of human dignity to deny them the fundamental choice to exercise the right of self-defense.

    Do you really feel naked and deprived of dignity when you go someplace unarmed? Do you really not see dignity in people who don’t carry guns? That’s not a rational tactical calculation, and I sure as hell would not feel safe in the presence of so insecure a person, if he were carrying a gun and insisting it was for our own good.

    I don’t think you should be forced to have them, or use them, or anything. I just don’t want mine prohibited. And, as a plus, i’ll defend the defenseless too.

    Given the utter ignorance and patronizing nonsense we’ve heard from you here, I have to ask: On what grounds do you expect us to believe you would: a) choose to risk your life for strangers whose legitimate concerns and experiences you patronizingly brush off here, and b) think of anything other than your own life once the shooting started? A patronizing asshole with a hero complex who expects everyone else to thank him for looking out for us, is not someone who can be trusted with a gun.

    Equating lawful self defense with firearms to torture is a bit…weak.

    I wasn’t equating the carrying of guns to torture, I was equating the emotion-based rationalizations used to justify both. Pretending not to get my point is more than “a bit” cowardly and dishonest.

    Yes, your chances are better if you can return fire to your opponent than if you just cower and wait for him to come kill you. Further, it is immoral to tell people that they have to die like that.

    Thanks for proving my point, once again, about the purely dumb-animal mentality underlying the gun-rights movement. We live and work in social networks where nearly everyone is able to trust each other to play by the rules and not turn violent at the drop of a hat — and yet this guy still can’t bring himself to treat those people as humans, not as predatory animals. These are the words and reasoning of a person who can’t bring himself to participate in civil society, even as he benefits from it as much as he can. (And BTW, no, your chances are not “better if you can return fire;” they’re better if you can GET OUT. Your tactical calculation is shit, as always.)

    Also, note the blind hypocrisy here: the gun-nut can’t trust the other people he’s with not to try to hurt him, and yet he expects us to give him, without question, all of the trust he refuses to give us. Again, to put it mildly, not the kind of person I’d trust with a gun.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Here, the only person who got hurt was the one who was actively making a (heroic) choice to attempt to intervene. He got killed for his trouble, and didn’t accomplish his goal…but he didn’t hurt anyone else and knew exactly who his target was (albeit not knowing of the second target…bad SA).

    First, if the vigilante wannabee had a wife and kids to not come home to anymore, then yes, someone else was indeed hurt by his pointless attempt at heroism.

    Second, the people he was trying to shoot weren’t taking any hostages, they were telling everyone else to get out. So who would have been hurt if this vigilante wannabee had simply got out as ordered? The cops were already dead, so what was there to fight for really? Was Walmart’s “always low prices” merchandise really worth dying for?

    And third, if “it’s OK because the gun nut was the only person who got hurt by his stupidity” is the best defense you can offer, then you really need to stop and take a good hard look at how stupid you’re making yourself look.

  • sabrekgb

    @ Raging Bee

    I was referring to people LIKE you … people of your mindset have indeed blamed the victims

    Nope, you don’t get to do this. Just because you’d like me to be blaming the victims doesn’t make it so. Lumping me in with others who might be doesn’t make it so.

    I do not blame the victims. I place all blame on the murderer. I explicitly said this above, after your first lie, so now you have no excuse. Why do you have to lie about this? Argue the actual points, instead of trying to force my mindset into your caricature. People can disagree with you in good faith and not be evil…stop trying to make them (me) evil with your lies because it makes it easier to dismiss and vilify. Again, fuck you. Saying I mean something when i have explicitly said that i do not is not arguing in good faith.

    It would have been nice if one of the congregation would have killed this scumbag and saved some lives. Acknowledging that does not mean someone is blaming the victims. Saying that it would have been nice if there was a cop there that could have killed the scumbag is not blaming the cops for not being there. People are responsible for their actions, and this racist murderer is responsible for his. Looking at a situation and taking potential lessons or policy implications from it is not blaming victims.

    you don’t advocate requiring people to carry guns; but you’ll just ridicule them and call them sheep when they get murdered. So yes, you ARE blaming the victims for not carrying guns; and it’s no better than blaming rape-victims for showing too much skin

    I wasn’t ridiculing the victims, i was ridiculing the silly position that not having a means of self-defense somehow makes you safer. And, yes, this was advocated above. Even if all the victims held this position, i’m still not blaming the victims. You are aware that one can argue against an idea and not against a person who holds it, yes? If not, then let me, once more, make it abundantly fucking clear: The victims are not to blame for their own deaths. The person to blame for their deaths is the racist murderer who killed them.

    Trying to equate my position to the rape/showing skin thing is disingenuous as fuck. If I said something like, “Yeah, he shouldn’t have killed them, but what did they think was going to happen if they went around being black and unarmed while there are racists loose?” then you’d have a point. But I didn’t, and you’re being a real dick to try and twist what i actually said to mean anything close to that.

    Ships don’t generally sink (or get attacked by pirates intent on sinking them). I think ships should carry lifeboats, just in case. If some people are passengers on a ship with no lifeboats and it sinks (because it’s attacked by pirates), it’s not their fault. The pirates are to blame. If the ship had a rule saying that passengers were not allowed to bring life-vests of their own, and i criticize that rule and say that in general i think people should be allowed to have life-vests of their own, if they choose to, I am not blaming the people who drowned. Maybe life vests would have helped the passengers, maybe they would have drowned anyway…I just don’t think, especially if there is no lifeboat on the ship, that passengers should be prevented from having their own life-saving equipment and instead be forced to rely on the liklihood that the ship wont be sunk by pirates (or a passing boat coming to their rescue in a timely manner).

    Do you see the points i am making in my analogy? Give you a hint, lifeboats are cops. It’s not a perfect analogy, but i think it captures the important points. Oh, and what’s a really important point? I AM NOT BLAMING THE VICTIMS FOR THEIR DEATHS, I AM BLAMING THE MURDERER.

    I am not anybody else. I am not saying what they are saying. I am saying what i am saying. Stop fucking conflating the two.

    Do you really feel naked and deprived of dignity when you go someplace unarmed?

    No. Unless i’m actually naked, then i feel naked. I feel deprived of some dignity or agency when I am forced to abandon effective means of self defense. If i choose to go unarmed, that’s fine…it’s the imposition of that choice upon me that is depriving…most especially when there is no real security to replace it and there is no duty owed to me to keep me, individually, safe. How can you not see it as a deprivation of dignity and agency to tell a person that they may not defend themself, but that you’re not going to defend them either?

    Do you really not see dignity in people who don’t carry guns?

    Sure I do, I see it all the time. Most people I know don’t go armed. Most choose that. Carrying a gun itself has nothing to do with dignity or agency…my comment on dignity refers to others depriving people of that small amount of dignity and agency by forcing the decision upon them. Not allowing them the choice to have the means to defend themself is the deprivation. Someone who freely chooses not to carry is exercising their agency. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was a legitimate misunderstanding. This is about taking choice away from people, not whether someone chooses to carry a weapon or not. That’s what i mean by depriving someone of a portion of dignity and agency. Saying: “You, as a person, are not allowed to have the means to defend yourself.” is immoral, and deprives that person of dignity because you are saying that they can’t be trusted with it, as a rational actor, and that they are not worth “allowing” them to defend themself (while others are…but only if they are in a uniform) or defending, as an individual, at all…because police do not have a duty to the individual.

    Wow, Bee…you’ve got some huge conflicting things in your reply. And logic. Let’s examine:

    this guy still can’t bring himself to treat those people as humans

    Wait, what? I’m the one saying that people should be trusted to carry weapons to defend themselves, how is that not treating people as human? Seems like I’m ascribing them the worth to exercise self-defense, the respect to make the choice to do so (or not), and the judgement to be reasonable with the tools. Say what you will about me being wrong, but how the fuck do you get that i’m not treating people as human from that? You are, as best i can say, taking the opposite positions. Who is more respectful of human agency here?

    I sure as hell would not feel safe in the presence of so insecure a person, if he were carrying a gun and insisting it was for our own good.

    Any hypothetical insecurity of mine is kinda irrelevant. Your feelings are also not very important when it comes to restricting people’s fundamental rights. I’m not insisting that my carrying a gun is for your own good. It’s for my own good. It does, however, have some spillover benefits to third parties.

    On what grounds do you expect us to believe you would: a) choose to risk your life for strangers whose legitimate concerns and experiences you patronizingly brush off here, and b) think of anything other than your own life once the shooting started?

    a) The second clause is totally irrelevant. So lets address the relevant “choose to risk my life for strangers” part. First, there is the nifty, because i have before. Problem of induction notwithstanding, past events are useful to consider future ones. Not that you know that i have, since we’re just random internet people. But I have made that choice before, and taken an oath to that effect. We know that others risk their lives for strangers all the time…why would we assume that I (or the typical person) is different? Even if i am only acting selfishly, though…my actions in stopping bad people would have positive effects for others. And, whether i would defend someone else or not, taking away my choice in the matter (by taking away the means) ensures that i wouldn’t. That doesn’t help anyone.

    b) What is it, Bee…am I selfish or do i wanna be a hero? And there is huge inconsistency with this insinuation when you say that people should just “GET OUT”. Someone who chooses to confront the threat may be thinking of themself, but stopping the threat helps everyone (and not stopping it, but distracting it long enough for others to run helps those who choose to run). Is that more selfish than running away, leaving others, or less? If you want people to just run, you can’t make an argument about fighting back being selfishness. Be consistent.

    These are the words and reasoning of a person who can’t bring himself to participate in civil society, even as he benefits from it as much as he can.

    Can’t participate in civil society…? Dude, get out of here with that shit. First off, you’ve got no fucking clue about my participation. Second, you’re just being hyperbolic out of all touch with facts. Saying “Hey, i’d like the ability to defend myself and others in case the need arises.” is not participating in society? It’s antisocial to want to help others? Where the fuck is the logical connection there. This is just disconnected from anything approaching an argument. Go on, assert some more random stuff.

    You say I don’t trust others because I know that there are some bad actors out there and want the ability to choose to defend myself and others from them…and you say this means i don’t trust society. Bullshit, i trust society just fine, though not to an absolute extent. Neither do you. Ever lock your door?

    You’re espousing a hypocritical argument saying that i don’t trust people, while also saying that we cant trust people to have guns. Do you seriously not see the disconnect of accusing me of lacking trust in people when your position is that people cant be trusted with guns? Oblivious as fuck, man.

    I also notice you declined to address a lot of my substantive points. How about you concentrate more on the substance and less on trying to make me seem like i have a “wannabe hero complex”? Even if it’s true, which it isn’t, it doesn’t refute the actual substantive points I make.