Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2015, 03:51 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 03:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 03:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  These sorts of events happen daily - break ins, home invasions, murders. Riots and natural disasters happen with some regularity.

When the power is out, alarm systems don't work.
Locks slow people down, they don't stop them.
Less-than-lethal weapons are not very effective against multiple assailants.

I don't have any personal enemies (that intend bodily harm) that I know of, but that doesn't mean I'm not just as likely as the next fellow to be victimized.

And crime rates are low enough in the US that these events are rarities.

Not as rare as you seem to believe.

Quote:Most home invasions don't occur when a residence is occupied.

Actually, they all do. That is the definition of 'home invasion'.

Quote:Locks are a deterrence and can be used to prevent break ins.

They don't prevent, they only deter.

Quote:The point is that if you are arguing for better self defense and protection, these are the obvious steps to take to protect yourself and your possessions. But I don't see people lining up at home security conventions or alarm systems killing people.

Home security shows are quite well-attended.

Quote:And if you are seriously worried about home invasions and break-ins during power outages, get a generator to operate on back-up power.

I have one. You can't run them 24/7 nor have enough fuel to power them indefinitely. A severe ice storm can knock out power for a week or more, and has done so in my area not long ago.

Quote:Less-lethal weapons can be effective, the odds of being attacked by multiple assailants is low. Also, if you get jumped or assaulted by multiple attackers, I hate to tell you this but, your gun is not going to help you out any more than the taser or pepper spray

You are just showing your ignorance of the use and capabilities of these weapons. This is a problem I have pointed out many times.

Quote:(in fact, pepper spray would be great for multiple assailants).

No, pepper spray has to be sprayed directly into the assailant's face.

Quote:The point is that people use the excuse of personal safety and self defense, but it is an excuse. In practice, there are other options (that could be far more effective and don't result in people dying over some trivial bullshit, like material objects).

You can read everyone's minds? Shocking

When someone breaks in, you don't know their intentions. It is prudent to assume the worst.

Quote:By all means, defend yourself, we all have that fundamental right. But don't pretend that guns are this magic bullet that automatically confer some sort of immunity to harm. And certainly don't ignore the negative and adverse effects of guns (like the fact that people compulsively use them to kill themselves or a spouse).

I am not ignoring or minimizing the risks involved, and have never once in all these discussions done so. A firearm remains the single most effective tool for self-defense.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-04-2015, 03:55 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 03:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 03:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And crime rates are low enough in the US that these events are rarities.

Not as rare as you seem to believe.

Quote:Most home invasions don't occur when a residence is occupied.

Actually, they all do. That is the definition of 'home invasion'.

Quote:Locks are a deterrence and can be used to prevent break ins.

They don't prevent, they only deter.

Quote:The point is that if you are arguing for better self defense and protection, these are the obvious steps to take to protect yourself and your possessions. But I don't see people lining up at home security conventions or alarm systems killing people.

Home security shows are quite well-attended.

Quote:And if you are seriously worried about home invasions and break-ins during power outages, get a generator to operate on back-up power.

I have one. You can't run them 24/7 nor have enough fuel to power them indefinitely. A severe ice storm can knock out power for a week or more, and has done so in my area not long ago.

Quote:Less-lethal weapons can be effective, the odds of being attacked by multiple assailants is low. Also, if you get jumped or assaulted by multiple attackers, I hate to tell you this but, your gun is not going to help you out any more than the taser or pepper spray

You are just showing your ignorance of the use and capabilities of these weapons. This is a problem I have pointed out many times.

Quote:(in fact, pepper spray would be great for multiple assailants).

No, pepper spray has to be sprayed directly into the assailant's face.

Quote:The point is that people use the excuse of personal safety and self defense, but it is an excuse. In practice, there are other options (that could be far more effective and don't result in people dying over some trivial bullshit, like material objects).

You can read everyone's minds? Shocking

When someone breaks in, you don't know their intentions. It is prudent to assume the worst.

Quote:By all means, defend yourself, we all have that fundamental right. But don't pretend that guns are this magic bullet that automatically confer some sort of immunity to harm. And certainly don't ignore the negative and adverse effects of guns (like the fact that people compulsively use them to kill themselves or a spouse).

I am not ignoring or minimizing the risks involved, and have never once in all these discussions done so. A firearm remains the single most effective tool for self-defense.

Please substantiate this claim "I am not ignoring or minimizing the risks involved, and have never once in all these discussions done so. A firearm remains the single most effective tool for self-defense."

And I still don't buy the fear-mongering arguments. Corroborate these with actual data that show that guns are a necessary and effective means and that these events are actually events with occurrences that are significant such that they pose a threat to every individual.

I'll wait Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 03:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 03:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not as rare as you seem to believe.


Actually, they all do. That is the definition of 'home invasion'.


They don't prevent, they only deter.


Home security shows are quite well-attended.


I have one. You can't run them 24/7 nor have enough fuel to power them indefinitely. A severe ice storm can knock out power for a week or more, and has done so in my area not long ago.


You are just showing your ignorance of the use and capabilities of these weapons. This is a problem I have pointed out many times.


No, pepper spray has to be sprayed directly into the assailant's face.


You can read everyone's minds? Shocking

When someone breaks in, you don't know their intentions. It is prudent to assume the worst.


I am not ignoring or minimizing the risks involved, and have never once in all these discussions done so. A firearm remains the single most effective tool for self-defense.

Please substantiate this claim "I am not ignoring or minimizing the risks involved, and have never once in all these discussions done so. A firearm remains the single most effective tool for self-defense."

And I still don't buy the fear-mongering arguments. Corroborate these with actual data that show that guns are a necessary and effective means and that these events are actually events with occurrences that are significant such that they pose a threat to every individual.

I'll wait Drinking Beverage

For instance, what are the odds of any one of these home invasions? What are my odds of being mugged or attacked by multiple assailants?

I buy the arguments the founding fathers had for the second amendment, they really did have to worry about a foreign invasion. But a lot has changed since then.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 03:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 03:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Please substantiate this claim "I am not ignoring or minimizing the risks involved, and have never once in all these discussions done so. A firearm remains the single most effective tool for self-defense."

And I still don't buy the fear-mongering arguments. Corroborate these with actual data that show that guns are a necessary and effective means and that these events are actually events with occurrences that are significant such that they pose a threat to every individual.

I'll wait Drinking Beverage

For instance, what are the odds of any one of these home invasions? What are my odds of being mugged or attacked by multiple assailants?

The probability is non-zero.

Quote:I buy the arguments the founding fathers had for the second amendment, they really did have to worry about a foreign invasion. But a lot has changed since then.

I'm not worried about a foreign invasion, and that is not the only thing they were worried about.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 03:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 03:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, what are the odds of any one of these home invasions? What are my odds of being mugged or attacked by multiple assailants?

The probability is non-zero.

Quote:I buy the arguments the founding fathers had for the second amendment, they really did have to worry about a foreign invasion. But a lot has changed since then.

I'm not worried about a foreign invasion, and that is not the only thing they were worried about.

"The probability is non-zero."

The probability of an asteroid impact tomorrow is non-zero, but I am not going to start acting like the rapture is imminent.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 04:04 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 03:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Please substantiate this claim "I am not ignoring or minimizing the risks involved, and have never once in all these discussions done so.

Go read the threads. I'll wait. Drinking Beverage

Quote:A firearm remains the single most effective tool for self-defense."

Self-defense.

What weapon would a physically-limited person use for self-defense?
What weapon is as effective against multiple assailants? Hand grenades?

Quote:And I still don't buy the fear-mongering arguments. Corroborate these with actual data that show that guns are a necessary and effective means and that these events are actually events with occurrences that are significant such that they pose a threat to every individual.

I'll wait Drinking Beverage

You don't buy the fear-mongering arguments. OK. So?

I'll ask you again, do you want me not to have a firearm? In my living and activity circumstances, it seems reasonable to have a firearm.
Do you want me to have only a firearm that you approve of?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-04-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 03:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Please substantiate this claim "I am not ignoring or minimizing the risks involved, and have never once in all these discussions done so.

Go read the threads. I'll wait. Drinking Beverage

Quote:A firearm remains the single most effective tool for self-defense."

What weapon would a physically-limited person use for self-defense?
What weapon is as effective against multiple assailants? Hand grenades?

Quote:And I still don't buy the fear-mongering arguments. Corroborate these with actual data that show that guns are a necessary and effective means and that these events are actually events with occurrences that are significant such that they pose a threat to every individual.

I'll wait Drinking Beverage

You don't buy the fear-mongering arguments. OK. So?

I'll ask you again, do you want me not to have a firearm? In my living and activity circumstances, it seems reasonable to have a firearm.
Do you want me to have only a firearm that you approve of?

I've read the threads and never seen these claims substantiated.

Let's say that the rate of home invasion is 5 per 100,000 people (that seems too high, but whatever). Most of these are likely to occur in urban areas, but that is okay.

If you live in an area with 10,000 people, and the rate is 0.00005%, the odds of your home being broken into is amazingly small.

"I'll ask you again, do you want me not to have a firearm? In my living and activity circumstances, it seems reasonable to have a firearm.
Do you want me to have only a firearm that you approve of?"


When did I talk about taking away your guns? I am asking you to substantiate the claims you need them or that they are the most effective form of self-defense.

As far as the "approved firearm", you think any and all firearms should be available to the general population? I can't imagine you do, so we already agree that only approved firearms should be obtainable.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 04:10 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 04:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 03:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  The probability is non-zero.


I'm not worried about a foreign invasion, and that is not the only thing they were worried about.

"The probability is non-zero."

The probability of an asteroid impact tomorrow is non-zero, but I am not going to start acting like the rapture is imminent.

The probability of some natural disaster occurring is not negligible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 04:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 04:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The probability is non-zero."

The probability of an asteroid impact tomorrow is non-zero, but I am not going to start acting like the rapture is imminent.

The probability of some natural disaster occurring is not negligible.

Now you are equating home invasions with natural disasters?

I am completely lost on the point you are trying to make. Because the probability of being impacted by a natural disaster is non-zero, you need your guns because these natural disasters will result in the complete collapse of society and the police and national guard will be unable to stop all the rioters and looters and zombies from coming to your house to take your shit and murder you?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 04:21 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 04:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Go read the threads. I'll wait. Drinking Beverage


What weapon would a physically-limited person use for self-defense?
What weapon is as effective against multiple assailants? Hand grenades?


You don't buy the fear-mongering arguments. OK. So?

I'll ask you again, do you want me not to have a firearm? In my living and activity circumstances, it seems reasonable to have a firearm.
Do you want me to have only a firearm that you approve of?

I've read the threads and never seen these claims substantiated.

Nuh-uh - read the response. You asked me to substantiate two claims, that was the response to the first.

Quote:Let's say that the rate of home invasion is 5 per 100,000 people (that seems too high, but whatever). Most of these are likely to occur in urban areas, but that is okay.

It seems to me that the likelihood of home invasion in an isolated setting would be greater.

Quote:If you live in an area with 10,000 people, and the rate is 0.00005%, the odds of your home being broken into is amazingly small.

Your math is wrong. It's 0.005%.

Quote:"I'll ask you again, do you want me not to have a firearm? In my living and activity circumstances, it seems reasonable to have a firearm.
Do you want me to have only a firearm that you approve of?"


When did I talk about taking away your guns? I am asking you to substantiate the claims you need them or that they are the most effective form of self-defense.

You are claiming that guns are neither necessary nor effective. Do you think I should get rid of my guns? I don't.

Quote:As far as the "approved firearm", you think any and all firearms should be available to the general population? I can't imagine you do, so we already agree that only approved firearms should be obtainable.

There is no need of a .50 Cal. machine gun in the general population. It wouldn't bother me much if those were entirely illegal. They're not, by the way.

The useful discussions to have are those about reasonable restrictions, but this discussion demonstrates that it is difficult to have that discussion when one side is not knowledgeable enough about what it is they are trying to restrict.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: