Wouldn’t you hope that the ratio of “legit DGU vs the criminal gets shot or killed” is higher than “legit DGU vs all DGU”?
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Oghier
4448
Allowing guns into clubs filled with (mostly) drunk young men absolutely sounds like a recipe for more gun deaths, not less.
However, you can make a plausible case that, if any of the 103 people shot inside Pulse had been able to fight back effectively, the victim count would have been lower. Nationwide, “guns everywhere” would kill more people. It would be a bad policy. But that particular night, in that bar? If I’d been hiding in the bathroom, I would have wanted a gun.
If your kid had a box in the house and told you to never, ever open that box, and he hid the key or combination, what would be the first thing you did, the second he or she left the house?
Also I was locked out of my patio entrance, and rather than go around to the other door, I motioned for my 2-year old daughter inside to unlock it, via a lock mechanism at the very tips of her finders’ reach, which she had never even looked at before. Took her about six seconds.
Locks and keys simply underestimate the ability of kids, and “education” overestimates their ability to resist the curiosity of the coolest thing in the house. The real solution is obvious.
Guns are one of the last areas of resistance against liberal experiments, which I define to be state or national laws designed to change widespread human vices that are difficult or expensive to enforce but might possibly make a marginal change on aggregate, or at least make people “feel” better or safer, and if they don’t work, the results will be dismissed quietly (or pumped up with new money and laws) without rolling back the original changes.
Anyway, dealmaking is open! What additional gun rights or reduction of ineffective red tape would you like to trade for universal licensing, training, and storage laws? Shall we strengthen the fundamental protections of the Second Amendment in exchange for agreed-upon regulations?
As I always say, the left controls nearly the entire education system in America. Why can’t you use it to improve education about these important topics? Let’s make it a success story like teen driving fatalities and unwanted pregnancies!
ddtibbs
4451
285/365 is not more than 1 a day.
You’ve helpfully touched upon the fundamental difference in risk analysis, which makes this topic impossible to discuss among people that are unable or unwilling to see another perspective.
Widespread restrictions on gun ownership may improve results on aggregate, but they don’t help the abused woman helplessly shaking a restraining order in the face of her violent ex-husband, for example. And since liberals often don’t care to own or use guns, the “cost” for them is zero. It is only borne by people who could have used a firearm (and would have been willing to bear the costs and risks of ownership and use) had they been allowed.
Therefore, Internet discussions are useless! I’ve saved us all some valuable time.
In what way would you like to see the 2nd amendment strengthened?
I think a total ban of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and their progressive collection and destruction would be a big benefit. It’s harder (but still not impossible!), at least, to carry out a mass shooting with a bolt action rifle or a revolver. For home defence and personal defence a revolver, or a shotgun, for example would be just fine, and for hunting you certainly don’t need an automatic weapon in any scenario.
I imagine the people who think they are arming themselves against government tyranny would be upset, but tbh those people are already probably too crazy to own guns.
Oghier
4454
I agree with your point, and I agree that this is a fundamental difference in how people do risk analysis. I’d also point out, though, that the conservative position tends to imagine this woman using that gun to defend herself from her violent ex-husband. That’s fair. But it’s also the conservative position that a violent ex-husband with a restraining order against him should be able to buy a gun to kill her. I’m not really sure that the NRA’s positions make her more likely to not be murdered.
But I do come back to the fact that, data be damned… if I’d been in that bathroom, I would very much want a gun.
Timex
4455
I’m gonna say something here which is kind of coldhearted, but I think it needs to be said.
That number is pretty much insignificant.
In a population of 320 million, 500 deaths a year is trivial. It is not a number which merits federal action. The federal government shouldn’t be focused on things which are so isolated, rather than things which affect more significant portions of the population.
If we look at the CDC causes of accidental death, we’re talking 130,557. So you’re talking about 0.4% of accidental deaths, not even total deaths. Both cancer and heart disease each claim around 600k.
So, while tragic, I just don’t think it’s practical to have the federal government of the nation worrying about something that affects 500 people a year.
You’re right. An equalizer only works when both parties have one. If neither does, then you’re back to unequal differences such as physical strength.
I’m not really sure that the NRA’s positions make her more likely to not be murdered.
This is back to aggregate thinking. The woman in this example is given an opportunity but it’s up to her to weigh the risks and costs of all the options. Which, as we know, people don’t always do very effectively.
But I do come back to the fact that, data be damned… if I’d been in that bathroom, I would very much want a gun.
Or an emergency exit!
LMN8R
4457
And how many more people would have been killed because of cross-fire from people trying to defend themselves?
Not sure I agree - the federal government worries about things on a national level. Since there are no borders between states (see gun problems in Chicago), guns are a national issue. If 500 kids a year were killed by Russian air to ground missiles, would it be a trivial non-issue?
And kids are just the awful frosting on the cake anyways. The number of criminals shooting each other via recently acquired guns is disgusting, though here we are again up against the attitude “so? they’re criminals. They should expect it, or get a job.”
Minor edits.
Timex
4459
If 500 kids a year were killed by Russian air to ground missiles, would it be a trivial non-issue?
If that were somehow even possible, then yes?
I mean, the reason why the hypothetical scenario of the air to ground missile doesn’t really work, is because the government would be reacting to the presumption that WAY MORE people were gonna die as a result of the Russians bombing the shit out everything. But that kind of extrapolation doesn’t work here.
It seems bad, because we imagine 500 dead kids. And I certainly agree that it’s tragic. But it’s 500 individuals out of a population of over 300 million. The federal government has bigger fish to try, as cold and calloused as that may sound.
Domestic Terrorism affects less than that, so should we do nothing about it either? To say nothing of the fact that we spend millions on trying to cure cancer and prevent heart disease, why shouldn’t we try to prevent these deaths too? We should get rid of seat belts and airbags while we’re at it too.
Timex
4461
Domestic Terrorism affects less than that, so should we do nothing about it either?
Beyond what we do about violent crime in general? Yeah, probably not.
I mean… why exactly should we? This kind of highlights the issue. There’s some general emotional response, largely based upon media induced hysteria, that makes us think this stuff is so uber terrible. But it’s not really that much worse than any other violent crime. Domestic terrorism on its own doesn’t really move the needle in terms of your safety, statistically.
To say nothing of the fact that we spend millions on trying to cure cancer and prevent heart disease, why shouldn’t we try to prevent these deaths too?
Because, like I said, heart disease and cancer cause way, way, way more deaths.
We should get rid of seat belts and airbags while we’re at it too.
But again, there are around 5 and a half MILLION car accidents every year. So things like car saftey mechanisms are affecting something which involves a statistically significant portion of the population.
If there were only 500 car accidents a year, then yeah, we probably could get away with eliminating seat belts and airbags… or at least not bother with federal regulation of them.
That’s basically Obama’s stance if you read between the lines of that article on his foreign policy doctrine.
Given the rise of ISIS in all the power vacuums we’ve helped to create since 9/11, we probably should have ignored it.
This is where conservatives get confused. They recognize the unintended consequences of domestic policy, but fail to understand the same idiots would be bungling foreign policy. (Probably conflating the infallible military with its civilian leaders.)
But that’s for another thread.
And yet, we’re spending billions on it every year, some portion of which is very well spent (at least in terms of preventative measures - see how many aircraft have blown up around the world in the past couple of years from areas without the TSA, as well as what appears to be less of the coordinated ISIS attacks such as happened in France and Belgium recently.
Hardly. If that were the case, he would have ended the Patriot Act and the Domestic Surveillance programs rather than expanding them.
Timex
4465
But, the fact that we’re wasting money on crap like the TSA isn’t justification to waste money elsewhere. It’s an argument to get rid of the TSA.
And there are laws and educational materials to lower accidental deaths among children. The point is it’s a lot less than bombing the Middle East, or universal licensing, depending on what you’re talking about.
