Gun = Violence??

[Crazy Wolf]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

Skilled, expert; those are meaningless terms considering you and I obviously have massively differening opinions on what capabilites someone needs to have to qualify as skilled or expert.

Skilled: able to get shots pretty close to where they want them to go most of the time. (maybe, shoots 2 Minute of Accuracy groups from a 1 MOA gun)
Expert: they shoot better than the gun (if they had a 1 Minute Of Accuracy gun, they'd shoot 1 MOA. If they had a gun with 4 MOA, they'd shoot 4 MOA.)

Numbers are a great advantage, you fill in the picture of the situation for each other - your communications keep you thinking at a certain level, you provide something for him to shoot at which isn't your budy - or vice versa - which makes your budy more efficient at shooting back, you put out a superior weight of fire which convinces the other guy to keep his head down. And that's not even mentioning the tactics that are only possible with mulitple people.

Dude, you're getting into paramilitary level stuff to try to support your argument. If the situation in your country's so shitty that you have robbers using suppressing fire and flanking maneuvers against you for whatever's in your wallet, then that's a completely different ball-game, and in that ballgame you'd still want to have a gun (if you're outnumbered, it'd probably be best to just do what the bad guys say, and lose the contents of your wallet. But if they're not content with just your possessions, I think most people would prefer to at least TRY to take one of the bad guys with them).

Which most people aren't.

Most people aren't, but most people also don't wear body armor. "Most" isn't all. This argument is akin to "oh, that social program will only reduce poverty from 20% to 10%? Well, that's not ending poverty, so why even bother?"

Just showing you know they're there discourages most criminals. That has little to do with you being skilled or equal and a lot to do with you not being worth their time when there's easier prey around.

Knowing you notice them deters some criminals. Letting them know you're armed and willing to defend yourself deters even more. It won't deter them all, but it'll take care of the majority.

[Zurahn]

Having a gun gives a hostile a reason to shoot. Posting a story about how someone trying to steal a wallet gets shot and killed doesn't exactly win me over -- I wouldn't support the death penalty for murder let alone robbery.

[Crazy Wolf]

If they're shooting on sight, then hopefully you've got a chance to get out of there, line-of-sight for humans is pretty decent.

I didn't say that someone stealing a wallet would necessarily get shot and killed. If they know that getting shot and killed is a possibility (or a likelihood, depending on the situation), they're probably going to look for another target/line of work. Also, for points of semantics, "stealing" suggests something less direct than "robbery". I'm not talking about spraying a burst of automatic-weapon fire at someone's head for pickpocketing you. I'm talking about making it clear to a robber that you don't intend on giving in to the threats or intimidation by making it known you have the means and will to defend yourself.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

Skilled: able to get shots pretty close to where they want them to go most of the time. (maybe, shoots 2 Minute of Accuracy groups from a 1 MOA gun)
Expert: they shoot better than the gun (if they had a 1 Minute Of Accuracy gun, they'd shoot 1 MOA. If they had a gun with 4 MOA, they'd shoot 4 MOA.)

How quickly can you do it? Under what conditions? Any yahoo who invests a few months learning to shoot can get decent groupings and said yahoo will be just as dead as someone completely unarmed when he meets someone who shoots only half as accurately as himself but has preserved his motor skills, does it quickly and in the right general direction.

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

Dude, you're getting into paramilitary level stuff to try to support your argument. If the situation in your country's so shitty that you have robbers using suppressing fire and flanking maneuvers against you for whatever's in your wallet, then that's a completely different ball-game, and in that ballgame you'd still want to have a gun (if you're outnumbered, it'd probably be best to just do what the bad guys say, and lose the contents of your wallet. But if they're not content with just your possessions, I think most people would prefer to at least TRY to take one of the bad guys with them).

Line of yahoo’s against a wall, you walk past the ends curl in... You’re walking down a street, someone’s behind you and there’s a guy standing at the far end of the street having a smoke.... These are really old tricks – the second one’s where the concept of having a mark man comes from, the guy behind you is the signal to the person at the end of the street that you’re the target.

Oh I’m sure they wouldn’t dream of flanking you or using suppressing fire, probably don’t know an encirclement from an enfilade; but they’ll probably have someone behind you and they’ll be doing more shooting just by virtue of there being more of them, and if one of them decides to do some more shooting to make sure you keep your head down... It happens every day, that there’s the, ‘tactics,’ word in there changes nothing.

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

Most people aren't, but most people also don't wear body armor. "Most" isn't all. This argument is akin to "oh, that social program will only reduce poverty from 20% to 10%? Well, that's not ending poverty, so why even bother?"

No this argument is akin to “guns don’t make people equal, once you recognise that you can start thinking usefully about how to make those inequalities benefit you rather than walking around with your eyes closed thinking just because you have a gun and can stick some holes in a bit of paper you know how to defend yourself against all comers.”

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

Knowing you notice them deters some criminals. Letting them know you're armed and willing to defend yourself deters even more. It won't deter them all, but it'll take care of the majority.

I rather suspect the guy who continues after he knows you know he’s there is looking for a fight anyway so letting him know you’re up for one is more an invitation.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

If they know that getting shot and killed is a possibility (or a likelihood, depending on the situation), they're probably going to look for another target/line of work.

They might choose another target (children, women or old people instead of young men) but giving criminals an incentive to target the most vulnerable groups of society doesn't really sound like a good idea.

As for changing the line of work, this is obviously not the case. The reasons for crime remain regardless of how many guns are around, what changes are the methods used by criminals. That is why American criminals seem to be much more violent than German criminals - if you suspect that your victim is going to defend himself it makes sense to shoot first.

[Crazy Wolf]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

They might choose another target (children, women or old people instead of young men) but giving criminals an incentive to target the most vulnerable groups of society doesn't really sound like a good idea.

See, the thing about guns is that anyone can use them. We don't like to think of children doing so, and we won't likely arm them, but women and old people are just as capable as young men of using a firearm.

As for changing the line of work, this is obviously not the case. The reasons for crime remain regardless of how many guns are around, what changes are the methods used by criminals...

This is true. A lasting solution to crime requires social change. Until then, though, it'd be nice to be able to prevent crime against myself. And they might not search for a legal line of work, but I'd rather have another guy selling marijuana then have another guy robbing people.



Nemmerle, you're talking about situational awareness. That's a completely different issue than gun possession. A gun isn't a super-awesome wonder tool, it won't magically give you situational awareness, but being aware and armed versus being aware and unarmed can put you in a better situation. Don't walk by a long row of people against a wall if they look like they might try something, for one. Try to listen to see if anyone's following you.

As for shooting: making sure your bullet hits the target's kinda important, and exercises motor skills. I'm sure there's someone who is practicing with a handgun and able to drive tacks, but completely unable to defend themselves in an attempted robbery, but I'm pretty sure they're outnumbered by those who are a bit better-rounded.


Nemmerle, people don't like having guns pointed at them. If someone continues to follow you after it's been made pretty clear you know he's tailing you, then you might be dealing with a guy who is looking for a fight, that is true. But that guy's desire to fight might decrease when they see that you (or a little old granny, or a buxom woman, or whoever has the situational awareness) are armed, especially if you've managed to pull your gun and prepare it for firing before confronting them. Again, a gun will not replace situational awareness. But a gun will make it so you can respond with force if being aware is not enough.

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

I mean seriously, if you have a gun you're not equal to someone who's good at shooting it, who's in no way equal to the guy who actually knows some tactics, who's in no way equal to the guy who's good at observing his environment, who's in no way equal to the guy with body armour, the guy who has some mates with him, the guy who went to the trouble of learning to communicate with said mates... and then you go on. Equality ain't happening.

How many sharpshooting weapon experts wearing body armor and leading a tactical assault team do you have breaking into your neighborhood houses, SWAT excluded?

The point is still valid, a 5ft tall man weighing 90lbs with a pistol or shotgun at least has a chance of stopping one or more men from entering his house and taking his property or from harming his loved ones.

Your response seems more like a irrational statement attempting to disprove a general statement made in the mid 1800's

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

Nemmerle, people don't like having guns pointed at them. If someone continues to follow you after it's been made pretty clear you know he's tailing you, then you might be dealing with a guy who is looking for a fight, that is true. But that guy's desire to fight might decrease when they see that you (or a little old granny, or a buxom woman, or whoever has the situational awareness) are armed, especially if you've managed to pull your gun and prepare it for firing before confronting them. Again, a gun will not replace situational awareness. But a gun will make it so you can respond with force if being aware is not enough.

So you're going to confront this guy brandishing a weapon? You'd better hope he is following you. And if he ups the stakes by going for his own gun when he happens upon you waiting for him you're going to end up mudering him. Well that's what it's going to look like anyway.

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

How many sharpshooting weapon experts wearing body armor and leading a tactical assault team do you have breaking into your neighborhood houses, SWAT excluded?

The point is still valid, a 5ft tall man weighing 90lbs with a pistol or shotgun at least has a chance of stopping one or more men from entering his house and taking his property or from harming his loved ones.

So now it's gone from making all men equal to giving him a chance of stopping someone from entering his house; which was true even when he didn't have a gun.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

See, the thing about guns is that anyone can use them. We don't like to think of children doing so, and we won't likely arm them, but women and old people are just as capable as young men of using a firearm.This is true. A lasting solution to crime requires social change. Until then, though, it'd be nice to be able to prevent crime against myself. And they might not search for a legal line of work, but I'd rather have another guy selling marijuana then have another guy robbing people.

Not everyone can use weapons effectively. Old people, for example, often don't have the reflexes, hand-eye-coordination or strength they need to use a gun and have any chance at surviving a conflict with a young criminal. Even if everyone could use a gun there are a lot of people who shouldn't use one. Those who are too old or young to handle one responsibly or those with mental disabilities, for example. Then you have a lot of people who don't want to use one because they despise violence. You'd put all these people at a disadvantage - per law - because it makes you feel better or satisfies a hobby?

As for the change of work-lines: I don't think that armed drug gangs create a better scenario than unarmed thieves for the population in general.

[Crazy Wolf]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

So you're going to confront this guy brandishing a weapon? You'd better hope he is following you. And if he ups the stakes by going for his own gun when he happens upon you waiting for him you're going to end up mudering him. Well that's what it's going to look like anyway.

If you think someone is tailing you, and you take multiple detours, and they're still behind you, then there is a higher chance they're not going along their merry way, and are indeed following you.

So now it's gone from making all men equal to giving him a chance of stopping someone from entering his house; which was true even when he didn't have a gun.

No. that 5-foot-tall, 90 pound man has very little chance of stopping me, a 6'4-tall, 230 pound man from entering his house, if I wanted to and he did not have a weapon. If we both had melee weapons, then (assuming equal training) I'd still have the advantage of reach and power. If we both had a Colt .45, we'd be equally capable of imparting 500 Joules to a small projectile.

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

Not everyone can use weapons effectively. Old people, for example, often don't have the reflexes, hand-eye-coordination or strength they need to use a gun and have any chance at surviving a conflict with a young criminal.

Reflexes might be bad, but the reflexes needed to operate a gun are less than the reflexes needed to use a sword or knife effectively and defensively. Hand-Eye coordination is nice, but training with a firearm improves hand-eye coordination. Strength? I'm not saying they're going to use some monstrosity like the Desert Eagle chambered in .50 AE. A .22LR pistol would kick about the same as a paintball gun. Depending on the weight of the gun, felt recoil would be less (people report feeling less recoil with an M1911A1 (.45 ACP) than with a Browning Hi-Power (9mm) due to the increase in weight, which "soaks up" recoil better).

Even if everyone could use a gun there are a lot of people who shouldn't use one. Those who are too old

Y'know, it is possible to do mental-faculty tests on people. After a certain age, you require people to take those tests yearly or so (I'd actually prefer if that was also required for driver's licenses)

or young to handle one responsibly

Yeah, that's why we have laws about who is and isn't an adult.

or those with mental disabilities, for example.

Yes. This is why we don't allow complete retards into the Army. There is a question on most paperwork given by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that asks something along the lines of "have you ever been deemed mentally unfit or been in a sanitarium?" They do check to make sure, they don't just take your word for it.

Then you have a lot of people who don't want to use one because they despise violence. You'd put all these people at a disadvantage - per law - because it makes you feel better or satisfies a hobby?

I'm sorry, do you really think this will cause robbers to target children? Incredibly affluent, loaded-with-disposable-income children?
"HAND OVER THE FUCKING MILK MONEY OR THE TEDDY BEAR GETS IT, KID!"
"THAT'S A PRETTY NICE CHARIZARD THERE, ITS A SHAME YOU AREN'T KEEPING IT FOR LONG"

We don't have any sort of badging system for the elderly who have lost their faculties to the point that they can't use firearms. We do not require pacifists to wear a badge. We also don't have any sort of badge for the mentally insane. Sure, I guess you might have to worry about armed bandits robbing nursing homes and sanitariums, but that seems pretty damn unlikely, seeing as neither facility is loaded with cash, and those facilities are generally staffed with younger, more sane people (sanitariums often employ big young males, as they're generally best at restraining the crazy) who would be allowed to carry firearms.

So, what's kinda cool about the United States is that we have a big federal government, but also 50 smaller governments, that take care of issues like who exactly gets to own or carry what guns. In states that have adopted concealed-carry laws (permitting people to carry a hidden firearm, provided they are not insane or a felon), they have seen crime rates decrease, more so than the average crime rate. Vermont, considered one of the safest states in the USA, doesn't even require a concealed-carry permit. If you are above the age of 16 and not insane or a felon (which would bar you from any gun ownership), then you may carry a firearm pretty much wherever you damn well please, concealed or openly. Washington, D.C., by contrast, recently tried to ban all handguns, and has one of the, if not the, highest rates of violent crime in the nation.

BTW: you do realize that you're using the "think of the children" argument, right?