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
30-04-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
The fight to govern comes from the consent of the governed. That does not mean from the threat of violence from the governed.

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
30-04-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 10:13 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Holy shit I want to keep up with this conversation, but I don't have time to read a novel. Besides, after briefly skimming over the past couple dozen pages, I get the impression it's basically the same things repeated over and over.

To that end, allow me to repeat a few things over again that I've probably mentioned in this and/or other debates.

• Pepper spray:
Let me start with a few anecdotal personal experiences.

When I was 18, in the Navy, going to school in Pensacola, on wrestling night we'd watch the main event then, all hyped up, would then meet up with the Marines for some friendly competition. We'd spray the shit out of each other with pepper spray just to make it more interesting, and then wrestle... Because fighting without pepper spray in your face is for normal people

Later, as part of a unit that trained in riot control tactics, we had to not only get sprayed at least annually, but had to then run a little gauntlet as part of our pass/fail evaluation. It went something like this.
1. Stand still and get sprayed in the face.
2. Wait a few seconds for it to take effect.
3. Immediately rush to the first part of the evaluation, which involved administering effective blows to a guy all padded up so he doesn't get hurt.
4. Immediately rush to the second part of the evaluation, which involved deflecting blows from someone trying to beat the shit out of us.
5. Immediately rush to the third part of the evaluation, which involved subduing, restraining, and arresting someone.
Every single person in our unit, from seasoned combat vets to the girl who worked in supply, passed this evaluation with ease. Some screamed in pain while they did it, others hardly acknowledged the fact that they'd been sprayed, but not a single one of us was incapacitated or deterred from accomplishing our objective.

I've also gone through similar tests with Canadian law enforcement.

To that end, here's an example situation encountered from time to time in which spray was useful: Inmate Dipshit has been scheduled for deportation, so we approach his cell and order him to stick his hands out the hatch to be cuffed. He responds with something along the lines of "Fuck you I'm not going, and I'll kill the first person who enters my cell to try and get me." We respond by using a fogger (think pepper spray but attached to a tank rather than a can and used for filling a room rather than targeting a single person) to fill his cell. We then go to another room and sit and have crumpets and tea for a few minutes. After we finish our crumpets and tea we return to the cell and repeated the command, adding that in exchange for compliance we'll let him have a shower before we drag his ass to the airport. His response, in contrast to a few minutes ago, is something along the lines of "Ahhhhh, fuuuck, okay okay, I'll cooperate."

From what I understand it is also marginally effective on protesting hippies or drunk old ladies. I suppose if someone is trying to rape you, the pain might distract them enough to cause them to lose their erection. But against a determined attacker who is already set on doing harm to you? No. Pepper spray is completely fucking useless.

• Taser
With a perfect hit, it will cause the muscles to seize up and therefore be debilitating. This perfect hit is dependent on multiple factors, mainly distance. If you are too far, the prongs will spread too much before impact and the charge will be ineffective. If you are too close, the prongs will not spread enough. The charge will still occur, and will hurt like hell, but will not be physically debilitating. A shot that hits too close can still be used for pain compliance, but the kind of hit needed to reliably debilitate an attacker is very difficult to get on an attacker. Again... Hippies and old ladies only. You rely on a taser against a determined attacker, without a lucky hits it's your ass.

• Metazoa Zeke's katana
More effective than both of the above weapons, the obvious limitation being range.

• Gun
Will not always stop an attacker but... It is effective at any range from point blank to whatever the maximum effective range of the ammunition you are using is, and whether or not it stops someone is not based on psychological factors such as the willpower of the target or other considerations such as the amount of drugs or alcohol they've got flowing through their system. If you hit something vital, they're going down.

Nothing works perfectly in every situation. But out of the available options, a handgun is the most rational. Either way, we'd all be wise to accept death as a possible outcome in any given situation.

The main reason for the right to bear arms, however, has nothing to do with personal defense. That's more of an added bonus. I made a thread a while back that basically sums up my opinion on the place violence has in this world:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-is-Golden

Agree or don't agree. But if you don't have the ability to back up your interests with violence, then whether or not your interests are met are dependent on the good will of someone else. That's sure as hell not something I have much faith in. The government, the corporations, the police, the military, and any other people who ultimately hold authority, maintain control of the economy, decide where its surplus is spent, and have the ability to wage war, can only be assumed to look after your interests if you have the leverage to threaten them should the need arise. In that regards, the best use for guns is as a passive deterrent. I have no plan to go to war with my own country, and in fact the way things stand I tend to side more often with the police and the government than I do with the idiot masses who feel they've been wronged and want to lash out and blame someone else for it, all the while doing everything they can to delegate yet more authority to those whom they continue to vilify. Nonetheless, I am one of those crazies who has what people would refer to as military style weapons and a shitload of ammunition, and there is very little any of you can do about that, which is precisely my reason for doing what I do.

I'll just highlight one point:
"Agree or don't agree. But if you don't have the ability to back up your interests with violence, then whether or not your interests are met are dependent on the good will of someone else. That's sure as hell not something I have much faith in. The government, the corporations, the police, the military, and any other people who ultimately hold authority, maintain control of the economy, decide where its surplus is spent, and have the ability to wage war, can only be assumed to look after your interests if you have the leverage to threaten them should the need arise."

Horse. Shit. Freedom of speech. Freedom of information. Freedom of assembly. Violence is not a necessity for being able combat your enemies or defend your rights.

We may be animals, but that does not mean we are required to act like them.

You have the option of sitting it out and claiming moral superiority while someone else rewrites your constitution without opposition.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 10:21 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'll just highlight one point:
"Agree or don't agree. But if you don't have the ability to back up your interests with violence, then whether or not your interests are met are dependent on the good will of someone else. That's sure as hell not something I have much faith in. The government, the corporations, the police, the military, and any other people who ultimately hold authority, maintain control of the economy, decide where its surplus is spent, and have the ability to wage war, can only be assumed to look after your interests if you have the leverage to threaten them should the need arise."

Horse. Shit. Freedom of speech. Freedom of information. Freedom of assembly. Violence is not a necessity for being able combat your enemies or defend your rights.

We may be animals, but that does not mean we are required to act like them.

You have the option of sitting it out and claiming moral superiority while someone else rewrites your constitution without opposition.

So, citizens of the US are going to overtake the government (somehow without being elected by the people) and then just alter the entire structure of your government and you think the only way to stop that is with violence?

Grow up and come back to reality.

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
30-04-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 10:22 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 10:21 AM)yakherder Wrote:  You have the option of sitting it out and claiming moral superiority while someone else rewrites your constitution without opposition.

So, citizens of the US are going to overtake the government (somehow without being elected by the people) and then just alter the entire structure of your government and you think the only way to stop that is with violence?

Grow up and come back to reality.

Have you been paying attention to the news lately? Or for the past 10,000 years for that matter? It is always a small minority that determine the course of a new government. A mob of people can raise a shit storm and destabilize their current government if they're not happy where it's going, but after that point their role is done. That's when the "crazies" who make up a very small percentage of the population come out of the woodwork and decide where to proceed whether they have majority consent or not.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 10:26 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 10:22 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So, citizens of the US are going to overtake the government (somehow without being elected by the people) and then just alter the entire structure of your government and you think the only way to stop that is with violence?

Grow up and come back to reality.

Have you been paying attention to the news lately? Or for the past 10,000 years for that matter? It is always a small minority that determine the course of a new government. A mob of people can raise a shit storm and destabilize their current government if they're not happy where it's going, but after that point their role is done. That's when the "crazies" who make up a very small percentage of the population come out of the woodwork and decide where to proceed whether they have majority consent or not.

You live in a fantasy where you are going to be a part of a government revolt.

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
30-04-2015, 10:30 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 10:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 10:08 AM)KUSA Wrote:  I never said that I would shoot anyone. You read what you want in things don't you.

As for amending the constitution, many have salivated over removing the 2A but nobody has come close to doing it. I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.

So, what do you mean by " I'm sure some folks would feel compelled to vote from the rooftops."

Also, I pointed out that when you say the guns are not going anywhere because of the good ol' 2nd amendment, that ignores the fact that amendments can still be written.

I didn't say that I was going to vote from the rooftop only that some folks would feel compelled to do so.

To your comment on the 2A, it has been under attack for a long time and it's still there. I expect it will be there for a very long time. I know you don't like it but you'll have to get used to it somehow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KUSA's post
30-04-2015, 10:30 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 10:28 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 10:26 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Have you been paying attention to the news lately? Or for the past 10,000 years for that matter? It is always a small minority that determine the course of a new government. A mob of people can raise a shit storm and destabilize their current government if they're not happy where it's going, but after that point their role is done. That's when the "crazies" who make up a very small percentage of the population come out of the woodwork and decide where to proceed whether they have majority consent or not.

You live in a fantasy where you are going to be a part of a government revolt.

As things stand, I'd more likely be involved in suppressing the idiot masses. They're the ones who are a bigger threat for the time being.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 11:05 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 10:30 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 10:28 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You live in a fantasy where you are going to be a part of a government revolt.

As things stand, I'd more likely be involved in suppressing the idiot masses. They're the ones who are a bigger threat for the time being.

To whom and by what means are the idiot masses a threat? Consider

The only threat I see from them is their voting for more idiots. Drinking Beverage

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
30-04-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 11:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 10:30 AM)yakherder Wrote:  As things stand, I'd more likely be involved in suppressing the idiot masses. They're the ones who are a bigger threat for the time being.

To whom and by what means are the idiot masses a threat? Consider

The only threat I see from them is their voting for more idiots. Drinking Beverage

In many large cities the criminal element already represents a larger armed force than the armed representatives of law and order, including but not limited to the police, the national guard, and law abiding citizens. And many of those citizens are losing their faith in the government without considering the ramifications of the destabilization that takes place when they undermine its authority with an unrealistic agenda in mind, such as in Baltimore. I'm saying simply that, as someone who is both a member of the military and a privately armed citizen, I find it more likely that I'd end up on the side of the government if shit hits the fan.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As far as the pissing contest where I point out the similarities between the pro-gun arguments and theist arguments, I've provided examples to back my interpretations up.

My point was that you haven't looked into the support for those points you disagree with.

(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Once again, I don't know what the purpose is of asking how many guns I've owned, as if it's gun ownership itself that is the defining quality of being able to understand the subject at hand or to understand the statistics.

Let me make it plain for you, then. Very often, those people most adamant about restricting or removing the right to gun ownership base their positions on fear. They are afraid of guns, so afraid that they refuse to touch one or own one. I ask if you've owned a gun because I want to know if your shrill rhetoric is based on personal fear.

Also, it should be noted that I didn't assert that gun ownership is a requirement for understanding the debate, or the statistics. Please don't impute to me positions I don't hold, by direct language or (as is the case here) by insinuation.

(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As for pointing out the statistics for being assaulted or having your home invaded, it's clear you don't understand why I've posted these points. It has been claimed that guns are 1) necessary for self-defense 2) the most effective form and 3) that the threat is persistent enough to warrant constant armament.

And it's just as clear that while I do indeed understand your point, you either don't get mine, or you're deliberately glossing it over. Just so we can cross the first possibility off the list: All the statistics don't do you any good when the unlikely occurs.

(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  When you have events that occur infrequently, like natural disasters, that produce some sort of chaotic scenario where it is presumed that you'll need a gun to protect yourself from the collapse of society. This is a fear-based tactic. I find it unconvincing as a real threat, and unconvincing as an argument that guns are a necessity.

Earthquakes are unlikely, but when I lived in SoCal, I kept an emergency bag together nonetheless -- not because I lived in daily fear of the Big One, but because such an occasion would be devastating enough that preparation seemed prudent.

Be it noted, my emergency kit did not include a gun. I didn't (and don't currently) own one.

(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And then, when you have rates of assault and home invasion that are on the order of 0.005% annually, that hardly warrants the notion that these threats are imminent and requires a constant armament as if this is the old west (I guess I should say hollywoods portrait of the old west).

Well, "constant armament as if this is the old west" isn't really apt in those cases, if by that phrase you mean open-carry or whatnot. Home invasions are an argument for having a gun in the home, though. And again, though statistically the risk is miniscule, if a home-invasion were to occur, the intruder(s) will not pay much mind to anyone telling them that they shouldn't be there according to the numbers. It isn't that the threat is "imminent", to my mind; it's that the consequences of being unprepared can be devastating, and perhaps even fatal.

If you don't want guns in your house, that's cool; I respect that decision you've made. I think criticizing others for taking precautions is a little silly; and denying them the ability to do so just ain't right.

(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And the other point is that there are other forms of self defense and protection of your property. Why are guns necessary when you have other less lethal options available?

Well, I live out in the country. Here we have plenty of dangerous animals -- mainly snakes, which don't much worry me, but also coyotes and cougars, which do. I found this one dead in the road (after having been hit by an auto) about 100 yards from my driveway:

[Image: wwngwl.jpg]

Now, I haven't seen any cougar tracks on the property, but with my neighbors having young children, if one is about, a gun is not only the ideal tool for the situation, it may perhaps be the only one. Animal control is about an hour's drive from here, and the nearest sheriff's substation is forty minutes' drive. We have to take care of ourselves.

(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Are guns the best solution given the collateral damage they incur? (Things like the compulsory suicide rate with guns and domestic violence, points I've raised before)

"Compulsory suicide"? Suicide is a choice. What do you mean by that curious phrase of yours? Edit: saw your clarification, but I don't see how suicide is "compulsive". It may or may not be irresistible, but it is still a conscious decision.

I agree that DV involving guns is a problem. I think most abusers build a record on themselves before they resort to fatal violence. And I know that many states bar people with a violent conviction from gun ownership; I think that's sensible.

(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And at the end of all of this, I've still not supported the position that it is necessary to remove all guns from our society, but I keep getting flak and resistance when I point out alternatives (a litany of excuses why they aren't as good for one reason or another while ignoring the fact that a gun could jam or primer cap could fail to ignite, rendering the gun useless too) or when I ask questions that require more than anecdotes.

I don't think you support a complete ban, and I'm sorry if I came across as if I did.

(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If that's all that the pro-gun side has is anecdotes, then so be it. But, as I said earlier, that basically boils the argument back down to "fuck off, I like guns." Which is a fair opinion, just not a particularly strong one at all.

And here we are again: you're waving away sound arguments for owning guns as if you've rebutted them.

(30-04-2015 05:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As for the "hot headed posts" comment, I don't recall being the one to tell people to "fuck off" because they didn't like what was being pointed out to them. If you think my posts were in anger, you'd hate to read my posts when they really were!

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Your rhetoric in this thread has certainly gotten overheated at points (and I don't have the time to dig through 17 pages of posts to link to specifics, this long reply is taking too much time as it is), and that overheated rhetoric (and not just from you, there are plenty of hot words flying from all PoVs) makes it harder to have a reasonable discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: