What is wrong with people?

[egreir]

Insert whatever emotionally traumatizing event you'd like or any other wild but plausible thing that could happen. Heaven forbid she forgets to safety the weapon and leaves it resting against the table as she turns around for a minute to sharpen her pencil next think you know Johnny Starofdavid walks up and looks down the barrel oh cool whats this do!?

I know I sound delusional, but seriously, this stuff happens. Does not have to happen x amount of times a year for it to be a concern. Some people just should not be allowed to have weapons.

I don't know the magic formula for who should or shouldn't and I don't know that I would trust anyone to make that judgement call.

But people that I don't trust having loaded weapons around me or my family is not something I want to live with. Have your guns, find a state that will let you marry it for all I care, but do not bring it around me if you don't know how to handle it.

[inscribed]

When guns are an openly accepted part of your society, kids don't tend to be idiots around them since they've been educated on the dangers. I also doubt you'd see her leave her rifle laying around in the open. The same horror situation could be applied to kids being around cars or scissors, and obviously we don't have high accident rates with these items, despite their dangerous nature.

[egreir]

Israeli society and US society are different animals though. That may work for them, but the intellectual and moral cesspool that is being cultivated in our country...I do not see it working out so well.

Again, I'm all for everyone having their guns. If they want to be idiots around their own children, that's fine. But if someone brings a fully loaded pistol around in an unsecured holster with the safety disengaged around me or my loved one and I do not know them and they have negative energy and look upset...I will be first to relieve them of their weapon.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.

[Pali]

When guns are an openly accepted part of your society' date=' kids don't tend to be idiots around them since they've been educated on the dangers. I also doubt you'd see her leave her rifle laying around in the open. The same horror situation could be applied to kids being around cars or scissors, and obviously we don't have high accident rates with these items, despite their dangerous nature.[/quote']

Agreed. I'd argue a very similar rationale applies to alcohol and drugs... Not to derail in that direction too much.

[Akoz]

Again, I'm all for everyone having their guns. If they want to be idiots around their own children, that's fine. But if someone brings a fully loaded pistol around in an unsecured holster with the safety disengaged around me or my loved one and I do not know them and they have negative energy and look upset...I will be first to relieve them of their weapon.

Most of which is against the LAW even with a CWL.

C = Concealed.

[egreir]

Most of which is against the LAW even with a CWL.

C = Concealed.

Yeah, cause as we've said here, people obey the law...whether its in a jacket as they are walking down the street and I can see their holster unsecured, or whatever. I do not trust people with my own safety.

[Pali]

I do not trust people with my own safety.

Sure you do. You do whenever you go anywhere close to an active road, whenever you are in a vehicle someone else is directing, whenever you eat a meal you did not cook yourself. The issue is specifically that you don't trust people to safely carry guns around you... Interesting, as dying in a car accident rather than a gun accident is far more likely.

[egreir]

Sure you do. You do whenever you go anywhere close to an active road' date=' whenever you are in a vehicle someone else is directing, whenever you eat a meal you did not cook yourself. The issue is specifically that you don't trust people to safely carry guns around you... Interesting, as dying in a car accident rather than a gun accident is far more likely.[/quote']

Wrong. Your examples are a far cry away from me trusting someone with a loaded weapon around me. I can't control that person. Driving/travel is a neccessity, people who should not own guns owning them is not....there are things I can do to lessen my chance of risk while driving by taking things into my control as best I can. With other people having guns around me I can't do that. I can't dodge bullets, yet. I can however maintain a safe driving speed, be aware at all times of what is going around me and exercise control. I can choose not to eat out.

I can't choose who gets to carry locked and load walther pp7s in my vicinity who happen to hate my german heritage or think I look like the guy who shot their best friend.

[Mali]

Technically Pali is indeed wrong because he is perpetuating an ecological fallacy.

[Pali]

Which part is wrong? That you don't have relative degrees of trust for those people in those situations, that you don't have trust for people to safely carry around you, or that we have more car accident deaths than firearm accident deaths? :confused:

Re Mali: were I concluding what his concerns are from the stats, then I would be... But my statements regarding him were based on my understanding of his own words. If there's a fallacy there, please elaborate.

[Mali]

What is wrong is that we cannot infer Egrier's probability of encountering a motor vehicle accident or a firearm injury based on population level statistics.

The fallacy occurs when individual predictions are made from aggregate data.

[egreir]

Next thing you know Pali is going to try and make me believe in Jesus and have faith, you know, like the faith you have when you sit down in a chair that its going to be there for you. Just like Jesus.

I don't trust people. I am forced to interact with them, I am forced to travel beside them whether on a bus or driving my own car or walking. Does not mean I trust them. I do not think everyone is a threat to my life, but I am not naive enough to think that everyone that owns a gun is a model citizen, either.

[L-A]

I have a genuine question (as I'm not from the USA):

Assuming that firearms (in this case handguns) are allowed to be carried 'easily' in public. Next week at your local shopping centre a disgruntled employee shows up in the Food Court, draws a pistol and begins to fire shots.

Within the crowd there are three other armed private individuals who all proceed to draw their own weapons. None of the private individuals have ever met each other before.

If you are one of the armed private individuals, while looking around the food court:

a) How many threats do you see?

What action would you take towards these threats?

I'd be particularly interested in those with training' (especially military or law enforcement) opinion on this.

L-A

PS - concerning the photo of the teacher in Israel - isn't there some form of compulsory military service in Israel? Would this not give out that 'high level of training' regarding firearm safety to the entire populace? The same level of training that previous posts (on this thread) suggest isn't as common in the US?

[inscribed]

To your first: that's what I thought, thanks for clarifying.

To the second: two things. First, wouldn't a law that deals with negligent rather than aggressive behavior still be freedom-restricting from your viewpoint, such as my earlier example of speed limits? Wouldn't gun control laws be in accordance with the principle, yet still freedom-restricting? Another honest request for clarification here. Second, just to give you a better idea of where I'm coming from, we were definitely using different contexts of the word freedom here - I was using it in more of an absolute, state of nature sense, whereas yours seems to me to have a bit more baggage with it such as an implied moral stance. Freedom I essentially view as being able to decide to act in a manner of your choosing (so long as you're not attempting to violate physics or ), so in a legal system absent anti-murder laws, one would have the freedom to murder.

Edit: all the above is in response to inscribed's first of his recent posts. And he's very right that getting guns out of circulation at this point is a practical impossibility - yet another reason I prefer to focus on the non-gun causes of these tragedies. Our mental health systems in huge parts of the country suck, for instance. However, I'm not sure that a well-armed society makes a polite one - the wild west or parts of various cities come to mind - but then again, Canada's well-armed too.

I'm against speed limit laws as well... but that's for a different thread. Speed limits, while they might have been designed to improve safety, have had no effect, and are now used only as a means to raise money and an excuse to search your vehicle/property.

Gun control would be against the Non-aggression principle. The state is restricted my usage of my personal property despite the fact that it has no effect on another persons freedom.

I thought we might be using the word freedom in different contexts, so I wanted to clarify.

As far as the Wild West goes... the lawlessness there had little to do with number of guns, and more to do with a lack of education and a lack of readily available food and goods. You can think the free market for the taming of the Wild West... not a restriction on guns or anything law related.

And regarding "various cities"... well, again, it has little to do with the fact that there are guns present. It has everything to do with the general anti-intellectualism among urban youth culture. But again... that is for a different thread.

[egreir]

That's the thing L-A...

I'm in a crowd, shots break out, I see Shooter1, I take him out, but now there are 3 other men with guns drawn....all of this happened in the blink of an eye, there is no way a gun novice is going to truly know who are the hostiles and who are not.

This is where real training and experience comes into play and you can sense who is hostile and who is not, ideally. But when you are talking about random people with random psyche, random military training, random action movie junkie...theres just way too many ways it could play out.

For instance, Shooter1 was shooting wherever he was shooting at, but the other men with guns drawn are all aimed where Shooter1 was just eliminated. Hopefully they are trained and their guns drop as the target is neutralized and you realize there is no danger. As opposed to taking out Shooter1 and in your peripheral you see a man to your right still looking down the sights in another direction. You then call out for him to lower his weapon and he doesn't. Now you have a stand-off. He doesn't know if your hostile, you don't know if he is. It can get hairy when you are dealing with people who have not been on a tactical team together.

BUT

It's all situational and there are too many variables to get into, but the fact is that Joe Plumber is not going to be ready for a situation like this and likely would never draw his gun in the first place.

What about granny who just drew that nickel plated 9mm she got from her grandson for christmas and doesn't know wtf is going on but she shoots you thinking you were with the 1st guy!

ITS ANARCHY IN THE UK!!!

edit#24 Also what if I'm not there and the three guys that do draw their guns are wanna-be boondock saints that can't pick off pepsi cans from 10 feet away? Next thing you know they are tryin to save the day and take out the shooter and several friendlies in the process.

[inscribed]

I have a genuine question (as I'm not from the USA):

Assuming that firearms (in this case handguns) are allowed to be carried 'easily' in public. Next week at your local shopping centre a disgruntled employee shows up in the Food Court, draws a pistol and begins to fire shots.

Within the crowd there are three other armed private individuals who all proceed to draw their own weapons. None of the private individuals have ever met each other before.

If you are one of the armed private individuals, while looking around the food court:

a) How many threats do you see?

What action would you take towards these threats?

I'd be particularly interested in those with training' (especially military or law enforcement) opinion on this.

L-A

The reason a disgruntled employee takes a gun into a store to open fire is because he knows it's likely to be an unarmed area and easy to take other people down with him. The simple knowledge that there would a high probability of other armed people in the vicinity would likely act as a deterrent. If the disgruntled employee simply wanted to commit suicide, it would be far safer for him to off himself at home rather than risk getting injured and detained and spend life in prison after an armed supermarket situation.

As far as your standoff situation, if I walked in on four guys with guns drawn but no firing, I would simply walk away. My safety takes priority over getting involved with their business. If I were to get involved, then obviously the person firing on everyone would be the target. If it's just a standoff, then that means no one is firing, no one is getting killed, just wait for police to show up and secure the facility. If it's a shoot off, then again, it means the disgruntled employee is pinned behind a barrier shooting at his attackers, and more importantly, NOT shooting innocent, unarmed victims. Authorities arrive eventually and secure the situation, take statements, and arrest the disgruntled employee. Most shooter enter these situations planning to off themself after taking others down with them. If the more likely out come becomes one where they injure no one and possibly end up in jail, they lose their incentive to go out in the first place, again a deterrent.

In any possible situation it unfolds in, less unarmed victims would be injured. I think many people imagine scenes out of a Wild West movie unfolding, which is simply not the case. We have armed citizens walking around now and not once do we hear about a shoot out in the news. It's only the lone gunman in crowded, unarmed places that make the news.

PS - concerning the photo of the teacher in Israel - isn't there some form of compulsory military service in Israel? Would this not give out that 'high level of training' regarding firearm safety to the entire populace? The same level of training that previous posts (on this thread) suggest isn't as common in the US?

It's faulty to assume that any military or police have even an average amount of training with firearms, unless we are talking about Special Forces or SWAT or something similar. Just because the state says they can have a gun, doesn't mean they know how to use it.

To be clearer, I would rather have one untrained lawful person with a gun in one of these situations than no one armed and the attacker free to do as he pleases.

[Pali]

What is wrong is that we cannot infer Egrier's probability of encountering a motor vehicle accident or a firearm injury based on population level statistics.

The fallacy occurs when individual predictions are made from aggregate data.

Very true, and my statements were meant to be more generalized than they were - more a communication fail on my part there than anything, apologies.

Egreir, we may be using somewhat different contexts of the word trust - I was using it in a relative, conditional reasonable expectation of behavior sense, hence why I used the term "degrees of trust" in my second post. Perhaps confidence would be the more appropriate word. It's the contextual nature of language that would allow me to both say that faith is useless epistemologically as well as that I have faith that my chair won't fall apart on me - in the latter example, the word has a very similar meaning to my use of trust or confidence, whereas in the former it means to believe a proposition without evidentiary basis. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

P.S. inscribed, the point I was going at in the end is that while I don't think that everyone being armed will alone make a better society, I also don't think that everyone armed alone makes a worse one.

[inscribed]

What is wrong is that we cannot infer Egrier's probability of encountering a motor vehicle accident or a firearm injury based on population level statistics.

The fallacy occurs when individual predictions are made from aggregate data.

Don't feed the troll... don't feed the troll...

[egreir]

Very true, and my statements were meant to be more generalized than they were - more a communication fail on my part there than anything, apologies.

Egreir, we may be using somewhat different contexts of the word trust - I was using it in a relative, conditional reasonable expectation of behavior sense, hence why I used the term "degrees of trust" in my second post. Perhaps confidence would be the more appropriate word. It's the contextual nature of language that would allow me to both say that faith is useless epistemologically as well as that I have faith that my chair won't fall apart on me - in the latter example, the word has a very similar meaning to my use of trust or confidence, whereas in the former it means to believe a proposition without evidentiary basis. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

One second.

Nope. My magic 8 ball says please try again.

No, I get where you're coming from. I just threw the faith thing out there as a joke.

[Pali]

I know, but I thought it a good relevant example to use of the source of the misunderstanding, so I ran with it. I DO think you have some level of trust in people in the sense of the term I was using, but I can also understand how in other uses of the word you've got no trust in people.

Gotta love language.

[egreir]

I know, but I thought it a good relevant example to use of the source of the misunderstanding, so I ran with it. I DO think you have some level of trust in people in the sense of the term I was using, but I can also understand how in other uses of the word you've got no trust in people.

Gotta love language.

I just live with the fact that there are things I cannot control and I accept what life throws at me. That is more trusting myself that I can handle whatever life brings and know statistically its safe for me to drive to work, or walk downtown. I don't put myself in compromising positions knowingly, etc.

My argument when it comes to gun toting people is that driving to work is something that cannot be avoided. What CAN be avoided is having untrained, undisciplined, and careless people walking around with gun permits.

I think it's a matter of perspective. You call it trusting people, I call it trusting myself to deal with whatever these idiots in the world are gonna do.

[Pali]

See, the way I'd phrase things, I'd say you have confidence in your ability to handle things and trust in your understandings of people's likely behaviors. We're definitely using the words differently, though only slightly.

[egreir]

Let's hug it out.

[Pali]

I am Pali. I poke.

[egreir]

I don't trust you.