Post New

Steven Spainhouer, whose son works at Allen Premium Outlets -- a shopping center in Allen, a Dallas-Fort Worth suburb, where the latest mass shooting happened -- called him just after 3:30 p.m. local time to tell him he had heard gunfire. Spainhouer arrived at the scene before authorities, who did not get there for about 10 minutes, and began performing CPR and administering aid to those suffering from injuries in the lot outside the outlet.

"I never imagined in 100 years I would be thrust into the position of being the first first responder on the site to take care of people," Spainhouer said, noting that at least three victims could not be saved even after he applied CPR.

"The first girl I walked up to was crouched down covering her head in the bushes," he recalled. "So I felt for a pulse, pulled her head to the side, and she had no face."

No face.

Huh.

These well-regulated militias are starting to get a bit out of control.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-shooting-allen-...

If......all these years didn't lead to America become Tribalistic two things are certain:


1.)Much stricter background checks would be law of the land.

2.)AR15 and other military style guns would have been outlawed.


(Someone on TMF used to warn that becoming tribes will literally kill.....)

Now toss in the decayed culture combined with internet, social media, smartphones....

And, sadly...

This is a day in America.

Wait till it becomes normal in your politics - local, state, etc.

How interesting will it be when we all look back and say "man them 2020's were the good ol days"

Can your mosaic, become a melting pot once again?

Can your decayed filthy nasty pop culture be reformed?

Can your tribes at least have Americanism in common?

Sadly, no.

It's over.

The repeated postings about shootings aren't actually about guns. Because if the NPC's cared about guns they'd secure the ports and crack down on gangs and cartels as well as push for longer punishments for gun crimes.

But they don't. Why? Why doesn't the left follow through with simple things?

Because it's not about guns. It's about them wanting to take away freedoms American citizens enjoy and oh,
Yeah - delegitimize the Supreme Court in the process.

They're going to succeed. Their dream of taking down America, WILL come true - - but thanks for centuries of exceptionalism - it's going to take lots of time and work on the Left's part.

IN the meantime.....

Those of us who feel the Bill of Rights is a good thing.

Those of us who want the Right To Bear arms.....

Need to stop helping Liberals.


1.)WE should be for tougher background checks.

2.)WE should be for banning warlike weaponry.

Otherwise.....

Drip drip drip..... because Liberals have screwed up the culture, and succeeded at "modernizing" American culture......these shootings, will be even more rampant, and even more tragic. And THIS - will eventually give impetus to far more draconian bans than just assault weapons and I'm sorry, but the guy with the crew cut listening to AM Radio, holding a pocket constitution all ready to defend himself against the Government - sorry, he isn't going to win that war, he probably isn't even making his alimony payments.

WE need to get in front of this and reform it OUR way that - ends up defending the Right the Founders gave us.

Eventually, we're going to lose.

And the Left will sic their criminal constituencies on decent people and neighborhoods and we have nothing but out little flags to protect us.

Dope1: The repeated postings about shootings aren't actually about guns.

Umm, which shootings didn't involve guns?


Dope1: ...if the NPC's cared about guns they'd secure the ports and crack down on gangs and cartels...

The vast majority of mass shootings involved weapons which were obtained legally.


Dope1: Because it's not about guns. It's about them wanting to take away freedoms...

Nonsense.

87% of Americans favor background checks for guns.

81% of Americans favor a minimum age of 21 to buy all guns.

80% of Americans favor requiring mental health checks.

80% of Americans favor red flag laws.

77% of Americans favor requiring a 30-day wait period to buy all guns.

61% of Americans favor a ban on assault-style weapons.

Clearly, Americans want legislative action on gun safety.

87% of Americans favor background checks for guns.

81% of Americans favor a minimum age of 21 to buy all guns.

80% of Americans favor requiring mental health checks.

80% of Americans favor red flag laws.

77% of Americans favor requiring a 30-day wait period to buy all guns.

61% of Americans favor a ban on assault-style weapons.

--------------

And if you somehow achieved all that, would you stop grinding away on gun rights? I think we all know the answer to that. Hence the resistance because there is no compromise. The zealots cannot be appeased.

Apologies for the blank post. Had meant to hit 'Cancel.'

Umm, which shootings didn't involve guns?

That's not the point. Your point is another mendacious distraction and hoist up some straw men, which the rest of your post does.

But thank you for confirming my thesis: you just want to disarm other people. You neither understand nor give a rip about solving the problem.

But thank you for confirming my thesis: you just want to disarm other people. You neither understand nor give a rip about solving the problem.

Or they believe that disarming people would go a long way towards solving that particular problem.

Most folks who advocate for stronger gun control genuinely believe that significantly reducing the number of firearms in society, and more stringently regulating access to the firearms that remain, would reduce shooting deaths. You might disagree with that as an empirical matter. Or you might think that the costs associated with doing that, in terms of the limitations suffered by those who want access to firearms, are more important.

But it's a common internet malady, dodging the actual argument by retreating into the assumption that people don't have the motives that they profess to have - to instead construct the least charitable possible motive and claim that that's really what the other person wants:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/charitable

Albaby

Most folks who advocate for stronger gun control genuinely believe that significantly reducing the number of firearms in society, and more stringently regulating access to the firearms that remain, would reduce shooting deaths.

Some do. Others are like some posters here, who just want to confiscate them and be done with it.

But it's a common internet malady, dodging the actual argument by retreating into the assumption that people don't have the motives that they profess to have

Except that he's more or less confirmed that here in the thread.
The problem with the gun control/confiscation crowd is that's the hammer in these discussions and all the real problems out there are just little nails.

I *am* willing to be charitable: If I'm forced to surrender my 2nd Amendment rights, which right of the gun confiscation crowd are they willing to negotiate away? I'm thinking they could safely lose their 4th Amendment rights. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Fair's fair.

Some do. Others are like some posters here, who just want to confiscate them and be done with it.

That's true - but that doesn't mean they're not motivated by a desire to stop firearm deaths. If you actually get rid of all the guns - not simply adopt legislation to do it but actually do it - then you end up virtually eliminating gun deaths:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/japan-almost-comple...

There are lots of things that one can argue about that policy. But it's not really fair to claim that "it's not about guns," as you suggested upthread. People who value having a society with ready access to firearms might suggest lots of alternative approaches to gun violence that don't involve eliminating firearms, which approaches might be rejected by those who advocate for disarmament - but that doesn't mean the latter aren't motivated by a desire to solve the problem of gun violence. It simply means that they favor a different solution than 2A advocates do.
Albaby

If you actually get rid of all the guns - not simply adopt legislation to do it but actually do it - then you end up virtually eliminating gun deaths:

Sure. If I eliminate lots of things I can eliminate lots of other things also. You're trying to force the premise that it's the right thing to do because reasons.

Two can play that game.

I can eliminate most crime by giving the government the ability to search/seize anything it wants at any time. Since I'm trading my right to self defense Because Save The Children, surely you're willing to trade your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure Because No Crime Is Good, yes?

I can eliminate most crime by giving the government the ability to search/seize anything it wants at any time. Since I'm trading my right to self defense Because Save The Children, surely you're willing to trade your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure Because No Crime Is Good, yes?

No. As you intuited in your earlier post, whether it's a worthwhile policy depends largely on how you value the pros and cons of that exchange (and the empirical question of whether that policy would "eliminate most crime," which seems unlikely).

Advocates of eliminating firearms typically do not hide the fact that they regard access to firearms as a relatively unimportant - if not utterly worthless - right in a modern western industrialized society. And indeed, there are several examples of western industrialized societies (like Japan, noted above) that have implemented that position. In contrast, there are few (if any) serious advocates of "giving the government the ability to search/seize anything it wants at any time," and nearly all folks arguing in good faith would claim that that right is an important and valuable one.

Albaby

No. As you intuited in your earlier post, whether it's a worthwhile policy depends largely on how you value the pros and cons of that exchange (and the empirical question of whether that policy would "eliminate most crime," which seems unlikely).

Great. Then why are you arguing (and white knighting) for people and policies that do the exact same thing?

Great. Then why are you arguing (and white knighting) for people and policies that do the exact same thing?

Because it's not the exact same thing.

As noted above, limiting the ability of the government from searching and seizing anything it wants is a foundational principle in every advanced western democratic society. Put crudely, there's no country that you or I would ever tolerate living in that doesn't adhere to that principle.

But the same is not true of firearm ownership. There are a number of advanced western democratic societies that have eliminated firearm ownership (or nearly so), and they're still pleasant and worthwhile places to live. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore.....all have their faults and blemishes, but none of them are horrible places.

Your hypothetical proposal is literally just that - a thought experiment that no livable society would ever actually implement. But complete elimination of civilian ownership of firearms is something that's actually been implemented in several countries, without really horrible consequences.

Albaby

Because it's not the exact same thing.

Sure it is. On the one hand there is an advocation for removing of one right for a supposed public good. On the other hand is a removal of another right for another supposed public good. In neither instance is the outcome - the intended result of the removal of rights - guaranteed.

Sure it is. On the one hand there is an advocation for removing of one right for a supposed public good. On the other hand is a removal of another right for another supposed public good. In neither instance is the outcome - the intended result of the removal of rights - guaranteed.

Just because they can be phrased similarly at an extraordinarily broad level of abstraction does not mean they are the "exact same thing." Many things can be described at the highest level of generality as "restricting a right for a supposed public good," and those things can be enormously different from each other. There is a world of actual difference between, for example, a society that outlaws fentanyl and a society that prohibits people from eating or drinking anything without prior governmental permission - even though both of those involve restricting your right to ingest substances for the public good of better health.

The details matter. There are societies that have eliminated civilian ownership of firearms (nearly entirely) without becoming terrible places. There are no societies that have eliminated all restrictions on government searches and seizures of property without becoming terrible places (they're all either dictatorships or security states or both).

Albaby

You can drop the straw man fallacies.

Here is what America wants...

"Once again I ask Congress to send me a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Enacting universal background checks. Requiring safe storage. Ending immunity for gun manufacturers." ~Joe Biden

Forgot my graphic, even Fox polls show America overwhelmingly wants tighter gun laws...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/165197472279025...

Hey MAGA, the sheer fatigue of endless, ginned up moral outrage and panic and misinformation must be debilitating. Take a break.

The details matter. There are societies that have eliminated civilian ownership of firearms (nearly entirely) without becoming terrible places. There are no societies that have eliminated all restrictions on government searches and seizures of property without becoming terrible places (they're all either dictatorships or security states or both).

You're glossing over something. Well, two somethings.

First, you're confirming for me that the goal is to eliminate firearms from private hands. Thanks!

Second...you're assuming it can be done. What gun control advocates aren't getting is that regardless of how you feel about guns, the horse in terms of removing them from American society has left the barn. It's not practically possible to confiscate them all. Not. Going. To. Happen.

This is where details matter. Are you prepared to have a 100%, locked down border and MUCH tighter controls on our ports of entry? Because if you aren't, and you're not willing to go to the maximum to seal both, then you're going to continue to have weapons run into this country with near-impunity.

I'm also not going to grant your point about other countries "not becoming terrible places to live" because those comparisons do not apply at all to the United States. Neither in size nor in cultural makeup. It's just not valid to say, "Well, Japan is okay and they have very limited private gun ownership" because Japanese society is very different than American society. Ditto all the other places you mentioned.

Here is what America wants...

Right. Except for the fact that's not what America wants.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/04/...

The poll, conducted April 13-17 among 1,230 U.S. adults, found only 26% of respondents would like to see Biden run again in 2024, versus 73% who said he shouldn't.

That includes 47% of Democrats, while 52% of Democrats do not want him to run.

Thanks for playing.

First, you're confirming for me that the goal is to eliminate firearms from private hands. Thanks!

Nope. Just that some folks advocate for the elimination of civilian ownership of firearms - something that you already knew, as you've had discussions with people advocating that position on TMF's boards (and perhaps on this one, though I don't follow it as closely). As you well know, there's no single "the goal" in a public policy debate involving the opinions of literally millions of people. It would be a vastly simpler society if that weren't true. But it is. Some people think the solution is to eliminate civilian ownership of firearms - but many others believe that the better solution is simply to adopt a range of potential regulations on them.

Second...you're assuming it can be done. What gun control advocates aren't getting is that regardless of how you feel about guns, the horse in terms of removing them from American society has left the barn. It's not practically possible to confiscate them all. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Absolutely not. I'm not assuming it can be done. I agree with you that it would be extraordinarily difficult. The real-world difficulties of eliminating civilian ownership of guns are a very valid critique of the proposed policy. Claiming that the policy isn't really about guns, though, is not.

I'm also not going to grant your point about other countries "not becoming terrible places to live" because those comparisons do not apply at all to the United States. Neither in size nor in cultural makeup. It's just not valid to say, "Well, Japan is okay and they have very limited private gun ownership" because Japanese society is very different than American society.

Of course. Again, that's a potential argument against eliminating civilian ownership of firearms. The context I raised those other countries was not to argue equivalence with the United States, but rather to point out the difference between your hypothetical policy (eliminate all limits on the governments ability to search and seize property) and the policy proposal of disarmament. Since the latter has actually been implemented in several relatively pleasant societies, while the former has only been implemented in security states and dictatorships, the latter is a far more credible policy alternative. There are certainly reasons you can argue it wouldn't be as good a policy in the U.S. than in other nations - but unlike your hypothetical, it is at least plausible for a free democratic western advanced society to adopt a "no firearms" policy and remain free. It might not actually be a good policy for every country, but it's within the realm of plausibility in a way that your hypothetical was not.

Except for the fact that's not what America wants.

How does pointing out that America doesn't always get what it wants rebut the argument that America wants certain gun regulations?

Albaby

Of course. Again, that's a potential argument against eliminating civilian ownership of firearms. The context I raised those other countries was not to argue equivalence with the United States, but rather to point out the difference between your hypothetical policy (eliminate all limits on the governments ability to search and seize property) and the policy proposal of disarmament. Since the latter has actually been implemented in several relatively pleasant societies, while the former has only been implemented in security states and dictatorships, the latter is a far more credible policy alternative. There are certainly reasons you can argue it wouldn't be as good a policy in the U.S. than in other nations - but unlike your hypothetical, it is at least plausible for a free democratic western advanced society to adopt a "no firearms" policy and remain free. It might not actually be a good policy for every country, but it's within the realm of plausibility in a way that your hypothetical was not.

Oh, I don't know. If you let me search any citizen's private documents, residence and what not at will I bet I could put a huge dent in crime. Of course you're correct in that a) nobody would stand for that and b) it's absolutely not practical to do so and c) wouldn't necessarily eliminate crime to the level it would be claimed to do it at.

The point was to show that utopian solutions might sound good on paper but The Devil Is In The Details. The particular Devil in the case of gun confiscation would be the exponential increase in Boating Accidents (Sorry, officer, I was out on my boat with all my guns and ammo and they all just fell overboard. It must have been a freak wind gust or wave or something).

How does pointing out that America doesn't always get what it wants rebut the argument that America wants certain gun regulations?

His point was that since Joe Biden said something in between Adderall IV drips that somehow his pronouncements amounted to "what America wanted". In other words he drew the logical conclusion that Joe Biden's mumblings = what America wants.

I merely pointed out to him that his own party doesn't even want the guy to run again, which kinda defeats his logic.

It simply means that they favor a different solution than 2A advocates do.
Albaby

-----------------

Or perhaps they have deluded themselves into a solution that really isn't.

Ending immunity for gun manufacturers."

------------------

Sure, let the rapacious plaintiffs attorneys run the manufacturers and retailers out of business. Save the government the trouble and constitutional issue of direct confiscation. I see what you are doing there.

His point was that since Joe Biden said something in between Adderall IV drips that somehow his pronouncements amounted to "what America wanted".

No - he cited to a public opinion poll showing support for various gun regulations as evidence that these were what American wanted.

The point was to show that utopian solutions might sound good on paper but The Devil Is In The Details. The particular Devil in the case of gun confiscation would be the exponential increase in Boating Accidents (Sorry, officer, I was out on my boat with all my guns and ammo and they all just fell overboard. It must have been a freak wind gust or wave or something).

Elimination of civilian ownership of firearms isn't exactly "utopian" - because, again, that type of policy actually exists in several nations. "Utopia" literally means "no place" - the ironic point that More was trying to make is that certain types of fanciful imagined "perfect worlds" cannot exist in reality. But there are actual, real-world examples of countries that have negligible civilian ownership of firearms. If that were something that the people of the United States actually wanted to implement, it probably could be done.

Note that your "Boating Accidents" don't really pose a problem for this policy. After all, the result of that "Boating Accident" is that the guns and ammo are actually lost - and likely permanently. It doesn't really matter if the guns get destroyed as part of a buyback or because they're tossed overboard - the outcome is the same.

Or perhaps they have deluded themselves into a solution that really isn't.

I'm not sure I follow. If you actually reduced the rate of civilian ownership of firearms to near-zero, you'd eliminate most gun violence. After all, that's been the experience in Japan.

Elimination of civilian ownership of firearms isn't exactly "utopian" - because, again, that type of policy actually exists in several nations.

You've already agreed that those countries are those countries and are *not* the United States.

After all, the result of that "Boating Accident" is that the guns and ammo are actually lost - and likely permanently. It doesn't really matter if the guns get destroyed as part of a buyback or because they're tossed overboard - the outcome is the same.

Uhhh.... I see I need to add more air quotes: " " boating accident " ", as the joke goes, is a euphemism for All my weapons mysteriously vanished, officer. I have no clue where they went. The point being, of course, that absolutely nothing happened to any of them.

Anyways. Thanks to
-Cultural rot
-Absent parents
-Lack of strong home environments
-Rise of social media
-Overmedicating of kids in lieu of discipline...

...and magnified by recent social disruptions in the form of COVID lockdowns that we're in for a rough period where we have all sorts of people running around out there with serious and untreated mental issues. Mass shootings are a sign of that and getting rid of guns in a spiraling crime environment just makes for more victims in the end.

Note that your "Boating Accidents" don't really pose a problem for this policy. After all, the result of that "Boating Accident" is that the guns and ammo are actually lost - and likely permanently. It doesn't really matter if the guns get destroyed as part of a buyback or because they're tossed overboard - the outcome is the same.

I thought he was implying that a fictional "boating accident" will be used as the reason they have no more guns to be confiscated.

You've already agreed that those countries are those countries and are *not* the United States.

Of course. But it means that it is more likely that such an outcome could exist in the U.S. than, say, eliminating sadness or achieving immortality. There are quite a few nations that have successfully reduced civilian ownership of firearms to a negligible number. It is a policy outcome that is achievable, in practice, in actual countries that exist. There are certainly factors that make achieving that outcome more or less likely in different countries, of course. But it's not "utopian" in the sense that other wished-for goals are.

Uhhh.... I see I need to add more air quotes: " " boating accident " ", as the joke goes, is a euphemism for All my weapons mysteriously vanished, officer. I have no clue where they went. The point being, of course, that absolutely nothing happened to any of them.

Why do you think that would be successful? Officers typically don't just take people's word that they aren't in possession of illegal items. That "boating accident" response is so implausible that law enforcement isn't going to accept it.

I thought he was implying that a fictional "boating accident" will be used as the reason they have no more guns to be confiscated.

This, exactly.
Putting it another way: compliance rates with any confiscation program will be low.

Of course. But it means that it is more likely that such an outcome could exist in the U.S. than, say, eliminating sadness or achieving immortality.

If by "more likely" you mean, say, there exists a 0.000001% chance it works instead of a 0.0001% chance, then sure: statistically it's more likely to happen. Kinda like how I'm more likely, statistically speaking, to win the Powerball once in my lifetime than I am to win the Powerball twice in my lifetime.

I mean, more likely, sure thing. In terms of actually happening? Not so much.

Why do you think that would be successful? Officers typically don't just take people's word that they aren't in possession of illegal items. That "boating accident" response is so implausible that law enforcement isn't going to accept it.

Now we're getting real. How much of the Constitution are you prepared to shred here?

Going to break into a house and search it to find guns & ammo as a part of your confiscation program? Or are you going to assert Probable Cause and get a warrant to do so? Note that to do that you have to have some evidence that there's a gun inside somebody's house.

What happens if the authorities say I have guns and they aren't there? Going to lock me up for the absence of evidence?

Or perhaps we're inventing charges now to jail people for not being enthusiastic participants? (We know that lying so-and-so has guns all over the place; but since we can't find them we're going to lock him up anyway.)

This is *not* a Slippery Slope argument (in case you want to go there). The mechanisms and the details of the left's dreams are very much relevant to the broader policy discussion.

To put a fine point on it: So you want to outlaw guns. And then what happens?

Or are you going to assert Probable Cause and get a warrant to do so?

Sure, if I have probable cause.

If we pass a law that makes it illegal to own a firearm, and there exists a paper trail that documents that you've purchased a firearm (or there's witnesses that have seen you with your gun or you've posted pictures of yourself with your gun on Facebook), and when police ask you what happened to your firearm and you transparently lie to them, you're creating probable cause that you actually still have possession of that firearm. It's not hard. As part of the law that prohibits firearms, you require people to file a certificate of disposition

This is not inventing charges to jail people for not being "enthusiastic participants." If you don't comply with a law that makes it illegal to own a firearm, you're breaking the law. Breaking the law doesn't mean you're not being "an enthusiastic participant" - it means you're committing a (presumably) criminal violation.

To put a fine point on it: So you want to outlaw guns. And then what happens?

I don't want to outlaw guns. I'm pointing out that successfully reducing civilian ownership guns is possible.

What happens? If you have a law that outlaws guns (presumably after either an amendment to the Constitution or the same type of change in Justices that led from abortion being a right to not being a right), and makes owning a gun a serious crime (a felony with real jail time), most current gun owners will get rid of their guns. Because, of course, most gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

After that depends greatly on the circumstances of enforcement. Guns aren't like drugs or liquor. They are big, heavy, hard to conceal, are complicated to manufacture, and require supplies (ammo) to be functional. If we made a real effort to crack down on illegal gun ownership, you could probably get down to Japan/South Korea levels before too long. Certainly more than a few years, of course - but doable, eventually.

I'd offer a deal.

First, I'd stop degrading bullying and talking down to gun owners, and those that value gun rights.

Give them a fraction of the courtesy that Liberals give to terrorists and violent criminals.

Then.....

*Really strong background checks.

*Banning of weapons that are needed for quick and mass murders.

In return.....

I'd get with the NRA, and even citizen volunteers - where in public schools there would be courses about firearms - history of them, how they were used to obtain independence, why to respect them, be safe with them, and how they are *not* the answer to simple conflicts, or problems in life.

And as a cherry on top: If we get the mass shootings down, you can rest easy and potential groundswells for gun-grabs - will go away.

BUT this would require Americans to put aside Tribal Colors - and also - do nuance.

Better chance of me being a good looking guy and trust me it's not a good situation. I'd have no kids if not for the ability to turn off the bedroom lights.

I'm not sure I follow. If you actually reduced the rate of civilian ownership of firearms to near-zero, you'd eliminate most gun violence. After all, that's been the experience in Japan. - albaby

------------------

As Dope explained, there are cultural differences that suggest what works sort of in Japan, may not be as effective here.

Also. reducing guns may reduce gun crime but that may be accompanied by an increase in other crimes since the deterrent factor has been reduced. And we know the police can't protect you and have no duty to do so. You are your own first responder is pointless without the means to do so.

This is not inventing charges to jail people for not being "enthusiastic participants." If you don't comply with a law that makes it illegal to own a firearm, you're breaking the law. Breaking the law doesn't mean you're not being "an enthusiastic participant" - it means you're committing a (presumably) criminal violation.

Except that you have to *prove* I'm lying. It can't just be because Reasons.
You'd need to catch me in illegal possession of the weapon in question.

After that depends greatly on the circumstances of enforcement. Guns aren't like drugs or liquor. They are big, heavy, hard to conceal, are complicated to manufacture, and require supplies (ammo) to be functional. If we made a real effort to crack down on illegal gun ownership, you could probably get down to Japan/South Korea levels before too long. Certainly more than a few years, of course - but doable, eventually.

See my earlier point about Devil In The Details.
To do what you want, you're going to need to lock the border down. There is zero appetite among the crowd that wants to confiscate guns to do that. Ditto for port control. If you don't do either of those things, weapons still come in.

This, exactly.
Putting it another way: compliance rates with any confiscation program will be low. - Dope

------------------

I just had an epiphany. Why not end the drug problem by simply confiscating all the illegal drugs?

I am surprised nobody thought of this before.

Also. reducing guns may reduce gun crime but that may be accompanied by an increase in other crimes since the deterrent factor has been reduced. And we know the police can't protect you and have no duty to do so. You are your own first responder is pointless without the means to do so.

Gun crime, though, is especially lethal. To say nothing of the toll of guns used by non-criminals against innocents based on fear, misunderstanding, or confusion (as we've seen).

And the police do a pretty good job, overall, of protecting people. I don't have a gun, I'm not my own first responder - but the general framework of law enforcement makes it fairly unlikely that my house will be broken into while I'm in it or that my person will be threatened or harmed. Not impossible, of course - crime still happens. But as a general matter, most people in the U.S. will not be the victim of a crime against their person this year - and that's largely because we have a robust and effective system of police and other law enforcement.

I don't know the details of your situation, of course - but statistically, you probably don't need a gun in your home. Unless you have an unusual domestic situation, it's exceptionally unlikely that anyone will commit a crime against you in your house while you're present. Again, because we have pretty good law enforcement.

Except that you have to *prove* I'm lying. It can't just be because Reasons. You'd need to catch me in illegal possession of the weapon in question.

Sure, but that's not really all that hard in the situation you've described. You own a gun. There's almost certainly readily available documentary evidence that you owned a gun in the past, and it's a simple matter to provide in the law that prior owners of guns have to provide a statement describing the disposition of that weapon. The police ask you what happened to your gun, and you provide a transparently false story - one that will probably fall apart even with a few follow-up questions, and certainly with even a minor amount of effort to confirm it.

Super-easy at that point to get a warrant to search your house and find the weapon that you've been illegally keeping. It's not hard to catch criminals if their sole plan for getting away with their crime is to tell the police that they didn't do it.

To do what you want, you're going to need to lock the border down.

Why? Guns going to be especially poor candidates for smuggling. They're very large and heavy relative to their value - especially guns like an AR-15 or other semi-automatic rifles. Current prices for guns are roughly $10 per ounce. That's an order of magnitude lower than even marijuana (which is well over $100 per ounce even while being de facto legal, but used to be smuggled in quantity); actual illicit drugs like heroin or fentanyl are about $6,000 per ounce. It's theoretically possible that there might be a market for $10,000 pistols, but it's unlikely to be particularly large.

I just had an epiphany. Why not end the drug problem by simply confiscating all the illegal drugs?

Because illegal drugs are easily concealed, not conspicuously obvious when consumed, are often able to be manufactured/grown without the need for significant equipment (ie. not made of steel), don't require secondary materials like ammo to use, and have an enormously high value to weight/volume ratio.

I just had an epiphany. Why not end the drug problem by simply confiscating all the illegal drugs?

I am surprised nobody thought of this before.

Yep.
The other side of this coin is that you can't have Anything Goes, either: I live in one of America's Ground Zeroes for that. Loads of OD's per day and climbing.

I'd be all for "Common Sense" gun reform if

a) The left would argue honestly about it (has never happened)
b) There was an equal emphasis on mental health prevention - and not the easily abused Red Flag stuff
c) Gun crimes were cracked down on - hard (the left doesn't want to make crime laws tougher)
d) Frivolous nonsense like "let's sue the gun manufacturers was stopped (also not happening)

Problem is, there aren't any serious voices at the table.

And the police do a pretty good job, overall, of protecting people. I don't have a gun, I'm not my own first responder - but the general framework of law enforcement makes it fairly unlikely that my house will be broken into while I'm in it or that my person will be threatened or harmed.

Move to San Francisco or Seattle and then post your thoughts in a year. Your tune will be different.

Move to San Francisco or Seattle and then post your thoughts in a year. Your tune will be different.

Almost certainly not.

Again, most people in San Francisco or Seattle won't be the victim of any crime in their home while they're present. Crimes against persons are generally rare; crimes against persons in their own home are especially rare, since burglars overwhelmingly attempt their crimes when they believe the homes are unoccupied.

Yes, even in San Francisco or Seattle.

Again, most people in San Francisco or Seattle won't be the victim of any crime in their home while they're present. Crimes against persons are generally rare; crimes against persons in their own home are especially rare, since burglars overwhelmingly attempt their crimes when they believe the homes are unoccupied.

Think so, do you?
You're assuming the classic burglar paradigm is holding. It's not.

What you're dealing with now are street junkies who live in tents who need to score a drug fix RIGHT NOW. That means they don't follow "the rules" of burglaries. They'll break into a place to get the money to buy the drugs that they need right that second.

You're assuming the classic burglar paradigm is holding. It's not.

What you're dealing with now are street junkies who live in tents who need to score a drug fix RIGHT NOW. That means they don't follow "the rules" of burglaries. They'll break into a place to get the money to buy the drugs that they need right that second.

Can you provide a link that documents that this is happening at a sufficient enough frequency to "break" the classic burglar paradigm?

Just thinking about it, I would think that even "street junkies" would be more likely to break into cars than homes - they're easier targets, they're right there on the street, small and easily searchable in a few seconds, and you can readily make sure there's no one in them. Or steal bikes or other property kept outside, rather than breaking into a house.

Can you provide a link that documents that this is happening at a sufficient enough frequency to "break" the classic burglar paradigm?

I'm going off my Nextdoor feed, which is now full of neighbors of mine discussing break-ins while they're there.

Just thinking about it, I would think that even "street junkies" would be more likely to break into cars than homes - they're easier targets, they're right there on the street, small and easily searchable in a few seconds, and you can readily make sure there's no one in them. Or steal bikes or other property kept outside, rather than breaking into a house.

Most tent encampments turn into bike chop shops after a while. LA passed some legislation around it:
https://bikeportland.org/2022/06/16/los-angeles-po...
Los Angeles City Council voted 11-3 Tuesday in favor of a new law that would target people who sell and repair used bikes in public without a permit. The ordinance targets bicycle thieves who live outside and critics say it unfairly targets homeless people.
The ordinance: https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21-1115_...

You can see from the picture in the article what a typical camp looks like in terms of bikes. Had one of these about 4 blocks from my house - guy had a pile of bikes and parts outside his tent. It's not uncommon to see a guy riding one bike while pulling along another one.

The other things stolen frequently are catalytic converters (not to mention the entire car). Here's an example of such a crime in action:
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/armed-thieves-ste...

This was in Bellevue, which is across Lake Washington from Seattle and is considered very safe. In the video you can see the two guys taking the cat with one of them pointing a gun at the home (which was occupied at the time).

In 2020, 181 catalytic converters were stolen. In 2021, thefts of catalytic converters increased more than five times, reaching 1077.

Stealing a catalytic converter requires a saw and a lot of noise. You think these guys give a rip that the home is occupied or not when they're making that kind of a racket?

Say the homeowner had opened the door to see what's going on. Who's to say those thieves don't force their way in at gunpoint?

I'm going off my Nextdoor feed, which is now full of neighbors of mine discussing break-ins while they're there.

Needless to say, anecdotes off of your Nextdoor feed don't really support an argument that there has been a fundamental change in the propensity of burglars to try to avoid encountering residents. If such a thing really were happening with a significantly greater frequency, it should (at this point) be documented somewhere.

Who's to say those thieves don't force their way in at gunpoint?

I mean - the fact that it's not really happening now? Has there been a rash of forced entry at gunpoint into people's houses in Seattle over the last few years? If these "street junkies" you're talking about were in fact armed and had a propensity to commit home invasions - crimes that carry a lot more serious penalties than stealing some catalytic converters - then you'd see them happening. BTW, coordinated groups of bike thieves and automobile converter gangs do not sound like the kind of zero-planning "street junkies" you were talking about earlier - those aren't folks who are committing crimes of opportunity RIGHT NOW to get their fix.

The more likely explanation is that these folks are committing property crimes against vehicles (bikes and cars) for the same reason that burglars have always tried to avoid occupied houses. Crimes against property almost invariably carry lower penalties, and are lower priorities for police and prosecutors, than crimes against persons. Not just in Seattle and SF - nearly every state penal code (and the model penal code) generally provides for higher penalties for crimes of violence against persons than property crimes. So if you're going to commit a crime for the money (not because you are motivated to specifically hurt the person), property crimes almost always offer a much better prospect.

Dope1: What you're dealing with now are street junkies who live in tents who need to score a drug fix RIGHT NOW. That means they don't follow "the rules" of burglaries.


This was debunked in studies in another thread a couple of days ago: https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=173488198

The intersection of substance use, homelessness and theft might cause people to blame large encampments for Vancouver's increased property crime. Research in Seattle, however, suggests there's no correlation between camp size and reported property crime.

Plus, the homeless are more likely to be victims of crime than commit crimes: https://www.columbian.com/news/2023/apr/16/is-home...

In fact, people who are homeless are no more likely to commit violent crime than housed people, according to the state Department of Commerce. Homeless populations, especially women, teens and children, are actually more likely to be victims of violent crime, the department states.

This was debunked in studies in another thread a couple of days ago

Sorry, but just because somebody YOU label as an expert launches some study doesn't allow you to claim "debunking" anything. The conclusion that you posted is ludicrous on its face.

This particular part - from your link - is especially silly:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/31...
Annual government surveys from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show no recent increase in the U.S. violent crime rate.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH. Debunked, my left butt cheek.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-just...

Seattle violent crime hits 15-year high, and 4 more takeaways from new report

Last year saw the highest violent crime rate in 15 years, with an increase of 729 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2021 compared to 736 per 100,000 residents last year.

Crime rates represent the number of crimes reported relative to the size of the city's population. The actual number of violent crimes reported increased about 4% from 2021 to 2022, according to the report.

The increase in crime overall reflects the spike in violent crime that began in 2020 and shows little sign of dropping back to pre-pandemic levels. Homicides increased by 24% and aggravated assault totals continue to be the highest reported in the last 10 years. The majority of homicide victims died from gun violence.

And this is just what people report. A lot of property isn't being reported right now Because, Why? No one's there to investigate it.


Huh. So much for "debunked". Again, tell me you live in a suburban blue bubble without telling me you live in a suburban blue bubble.

Here's a sample from my NextDoor feed, just posted today.
Thanks for all the suggestions. This isn't the first time this has happened, but it does seem that people are getting bolder.

Last time someone knocked on my sliding door in my closed backyard (no gate so they had to jump a fence). I didn't notice it at first but my family did. They then started trying to break in (guessing they knock first and then assume no one's home if you don't answer it within 10 seconds).

When I opened the blinds and confronted them, they just froze and looked down to the floor (they had hoodie on tight, so I couldn't see their face when they looked down).

I called the cops that one time but they just told me to defend myself if it came down to it lol. Thankfully they left as soon as I backed away from the door.

Both times were pretty late at night. I don't understand how these people don't fear for their lives. Surely it's better to steal from Walmart or some big box store than it is to traumatize a family and risk way worse charges or potentially even death.

Emphasis mine. Do some of you get it, now?
When seconds count, sometimes the police aren't coming at all.

Do some of you get it, now?

Do you think that anecdote supports your position?

Note that the story begins with the person knocking on the sliding glass door before trying to enter. That's consistent with burglars' desire to avoid breaking into a house that's occupied. You don't knock to alert any occupants if you're indifferent to whether the house is occupied. You knock so that if someone comes to the door, you can just leave rather than risk a confrontation with an occupied house.

And of course this particular homeowner would have been much better off in this situation not having a gun. Had they had a gun, in their anxiety and fear they might have mistakenly used it - potentially killing someone who posed no real threat. That would have ended up irrevocably damaging their lives, not just ending the life of the individual at their door - probably murder charges and certainly legal bills for years and years. All while they were in no real danger.

Yes, it sucks that if you live in a major metropolitan area you have to lock your doors. If you don't, there's a chance that at some point someone will try the door to see if you left it unlocked and grab some loose items. But the police correctly assessed this situation. If someone knocks and tries the door and it's not someone you know, they're almost certainly not there to harm you and they're almost certainly not going to break in once you've alerted them to your presence.

The police are coming to help you - but only if you face an actual threat.

If someone knocks and tries the door and it's not someone you know, they're almost certainly not there to harm you - albaby

---------------

But you cannot be certain they won't. If they leave fine, if they are a deranged sociopath and pick up and object on your porch and start bashing the window, then what? Or if it is a group of thugs, bent on home invasion, then what? I would much prefer to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it.

I get it that others would not want to defend themselves and hope the perp just goes away or doesn't harm them if he breaks in anyway. But permit me to make a different choice.

The police are coming to help you - but only if you face an actual threat.

Even so, they cannot get the crime scene in time to prevent you from being beaten, raped or killed, if the perp is so inclined. Surely you realize that.

If they leave fine, if they are a deranged sociopath and pick up and object on your porch and start bashing the window, then what? Or if it is a group of thugs, bent on home invasion, then what?

Then they're not knocking on the door to alert you to their presence, and patiently waiting on the doorstep, to give you time to go to whatever room you have your gun in and get it. Deranged sociopaths and "thugs" bent on home invasion are never so polite.

I would much prefer to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it.

Because you only imagine the situations in which having a gun works to your benefit, and never dwell on the scenarios where it makes things worse for you. We've had three people face charges because they had guns when they didn't need it, and used it to kill someone who knocked on the wrong door or turned into the wrong driveway or went to the wrong car. Those folks have had their lives destroyed, because they had a gun when they didn't need it. Those aren't the only examples, of course:

https://www.fox13news.com/news/man-wont-face-charg...

Not everyone faces charges, but they'll still have years of wrongful death lawsuits. And of course, it can really mess you up when you gun someone down on your doorstep and later find out they weren't actually a threat to you. To say nothing of the situations where having a gun emboldens someone to escalate a property crime into a personal confrontation - vastly increasing the risk of personal injury to themselves from an encounter that wouldn't otherwise have reached that point. Given how rare it is that someone is breaking into a home for the express purpose of harming the occupants, rather than hoping no one's there, these other scenarios are far more likely for the vast majority of people.

And of course, that's only the danger to you, the gun owner. The other folks in these scenarios - who end up being killed or wounded for doing nothing wrong - would vastly prefer that the other person not have a gun when they didn't need it. This isn't like an umbrella, where if you have it and don't need it there's no risk or consequence to other innocent people.

Yeah - for most people, like the person in this anecdote, they'd be much better off not having a gun in the home.

Two Letters to the Editor in today's NYT are highly relevant to this discussion.

1 ' "Once again, the nation is traumatized by senseless killings by a man using an assault weapon ' this time, of eight innocent shoppers at an Allen, Texas, outlet mall. Once again, Gov. Greg Abbott issued a statement after a mass shooting, saying, 'Our hearts are with the people of Allen, Texas, tonight during this unspeakable tragedy.'

Time after time we hear about thoughts and prayers after mass killings. At no time in the past two decades has there been any meaningful gun control legislation in this country to curtail such tragedies.

The assault weapon and large-capacity magazine ban was the law of the land from 1994 to 2004. Data shows that during that period there was a decrease in mass killings by weapons of war. The data also shows that since the expiration of the ban, there has been a significant increase in mass killings with assault weapons.

Proponents of gun rights often comment that a good guy with a gun is how to stop a bad guy with a gun. That is simply not true as proven by what has occurred in Texas since the legislature there enacted an open-carry law that took effect in 2016.

2017 ' Sutherland Springs, 26 killed

2018 ' Santa Fe High School, 10 killed

2019 ' El Paso Walmart, 23 killed

2019 ' Midland-Odessa, 7 killed

2022 ' Uvalde, 21 killed

2023 ' Allen, 8 killed

Thoughts and prayers are not the answer in stopping this carnage. Common-sense gun control legislation at the state and federal levels is necessary."


2 ' "President Biden has ordered the flag to be flown at half-staff until May 11 to honor the shooting victims in Allen, Texas.

He might as well just leave it at half-staff permanently. We had 647 mass shootings last year."

Because you only imagine the situations in which having a gun works to your benefit, and never dwell on the scenarios where it makes things worse for you. We've had three people face charges because they had guns when they didn't need it, and used it to kill someone who knocked on the wrong door or turned into the wrong driveway or went to the wrong car.

And? So those folks made a mistake, and so therefore all guns need to be removed?

2017 ' Sutherland Springs, 26 killed

2018 ' Santa Fe High School, 10 killed

2019 ' El Paso Walmart, 23 killed

2019 ' Midland-Odessa, 7 killed

2022 ' Uvalde, 21 killed

2023 ' Allen, 8 killed - sheila

=========================

97 mass shooting deaths on your list.

Headline from the Chicago Tribune

Chicago homicides in 2022: 695 people were slain.

And that is just one city. Why aren't you guys as worked up about that horrendous statistic. I will tell you why, the inner city carnage that goes on every day does not advance the gun grabber agenda. It's all about the agenda.

And? So those folks made a mistake, and so therefore all guns need to be removed?

The point is that there's a risk to having a gun available to you in a situation when you don't need it. That your own gun can end up destroying your life - and you have to take that into account when deciding for yourself whether to have a gun in your home.

Situations where a person who doesn't know you decides to your home with the prior intent to force entry and cause you bodily harm are incredibly, incredibly rare. Not impossible, of course. But so very rare that you need to consider that the scenario in which you make a mistake with the gun is may be more likely to happen than the scenario in which having the gun helps you out.

And to address your question - if people are making mistakes with guns that cause other people to be killed or wounded, that can justify a policy response. As a society, we generally let people engage in behaviors that are risky or dangerous, if they choose. But also generally, we don't let people engage in behaviors that are risky or dangerous to other people without imposing regulations to address that risk - and sometimes we don't even let people engage in behavior that's risky just to themselves. Whether it's speed limits or seatbelt laws or building codes or food safety standards, we have rules in place to reduce the possibility that people will end up making mistakes that hurt other people.

The point is that there's a risk to having a gun available to you in a situation when you don't need it.

There's a risk getting out of bed every morning. There's a risk every time you start a car, or walk across the street. "Risk" at the levels of events like these aren't a reason to blanket ban anything.

Situations where a person who doesn't know you decides to your home with the prior intent to force entry and cause you bodily harm are incredibly, incredibly rare.

Sure. What happens the day your number comes up?

I'd rather have a firearm and not need it than need it and not have it.

The bottom line is, the 2A is there and it's not going away anytime soon. The Supreme Court will likely throw out Illinois' new assault weapon ban and with that Washington's will also likely go away.

There's a risk getting out of bed every morning. There's a risk every time you start a car, or walk across the street.

True. Which is one of the arguments against having a gun in your home. The risk of being a victim of a crime against your person in your home is so unbelievably low that it's not worth the money or danger of having a gun in your home.

Plus, even though there's a risk when you do mundane things like start your car or walk across the street, we still do things to try to reduce the overall risk. That doesn't mean you refuse to start your car or walk across the street - but it does mean we have rules that govern basic automobile design and safety (to reduce the chance starting your car will kill you) and that govern traffic and pedestrian crossings (to reduce the chance you'll be struck while crossing the street).

What happens the day your number comes up?

I'd rather have a firearm and not need it than need it and not have it.

The "day your number comes up" may be the day when an innocent stranger knocks on your door. Not the day when a serial killer does. The day you make a tragic decision when you're anxious and scared and have incomplete information, and end up destroying your life by killing an innocent person.

That's the point. If having a firearm when you don't need it is more dangerous to you than needing it and not having it - because the former situation is going to happen far more frequently than the latter - then you shouldn't want to have it.

That's the point. If having a firearm when you don't need it is more dangerous to you than needing it and not having it - because the former situation is going to happen far more frequently than the latter - then you shouldn't want to have it.

Welp, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Chicago homicides in 2022: 695 people were slain.

And that is just one city. Why aren't you guys as worked up about that horrendous statistic.

You're right. It IS horrendous. But it doesn't generate the attention that a mass shooting does in part because it's a continuous drip-drip-drip instead of a blow-out. And in part because the motivations are different. Homicides typically target another individual for a reason.....revenge (domestic, gang, etc) or theft. Sometimes innocent bystanders are killed as well because they're in the line of fire. Mass killings are motivated by highly destructive antisocial angers that have been incubated until they reach a breaking point, and exclusively take the lives of innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Getting guns under effective control will reduce all of these numbers dramatically. And it will also remove guns as the most common cause now of childhood deaths.

Mass killings are motivated by highly destructive antisocial angers that have been incubated until they reach a breaking point, and exclusively take the lives of innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Right, because gang violence isn't motivated by anger at all.

The "day your number comes up" may be the day when an innocent stranger knocks on your door. Not the day when a serial killer does. The day you make a tragic decision when you're anxious and scared and have incomplete information, and end up destroying your life by killing an innocent person. - albaby

-------------------------

You seem to know a lot about what law abiding, normal, stable, rationale gun owners may do in the their homes.

Statistics say about 45% of home have a gun in them. If even the tiniest fraction of those law abiding gun owners over reacted and shot an otherwise innocent "visitor", we would see a lot more of it than the few cases we see reported.

https://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics/

- there are 250 ' 280 million firearms in the US
- 40 ' 50% of US homes own a firearm, that's 120 ' 150 million people

And regarding how infrequently home invasion occurs? While searching for the above statistic, I ran across this eye opener

https://www.creditdonkey.com/home-invasion-statist...

How many homes are robbed each year?
The DOJ reported 1 million burglaries occurred with people in the home. 27% of them became victim of a violent crime. (Source: https://www.creditdonkey.com/home-invasion-statist...)

See that word "violent" in the above statistic. I know you feel safer if I don't have a gun, but that's on you. I am not a threat to you or anyone else for that matter. But I feel safer with one. I am not forcing,you to own one yet you would force me to not own one if you could. Be afraid of criminals or crazy people, not me or the hundred million like me. Sheesh.

Fact is, many of "the hundred million like " you, BHM, are incompetent, irresponsible owners. "Sheesh" is right.
I cringe every time I read some 2A fanatic write that mandating safe storage is an infringment, an impediment to one's 2A rights.


A huge way those legally purchased firearms get into the hands of criminals is through theft, the ATF said. In five years, there were more than 1 million firearms stolen from private citizens and reported to authorities.

There's a caveat here, however. Federal law doesn't require individual gun owners to report the loss or theft of their firearm to police. And while local laws vary, it also isn't a requirement in many states to report a stolen gun, either ' so the number of gun thefts could be much higher.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/10/1153977949/major-ta...

If even the tiniest fraction of those law abiding gun owners over reacted and shot an otherwise innocent "visitor", we would see a lot more of it than the few cases we see reported.

I hope that I've been very clear in emphasizing that all of these are infrequent scenarios. The "day your number comes up" is pretty durn unlikely on both sides of the ledger - it's exceptionally unlikely that you will be killed by an intruder you don't know in your home, and it's exceptionally unlikely that you will accidentally kill an innocent person. But you have to consider both possibilities in whether you choose to have a gun or not. It's not like an umbrella, where "having it but not needing it" carries no consequence - and thus there's little balancing in deciding whether to have it and not need it versus need it but not have it.

See that word "violent" in the above statistic.

I'm shocked it's that low - "violent" to the DOJ means even assault, which includes any kind of threat. They don't even need to lay a finger on you to commit a violent crime against you.

I am not a threat to you or anyone else for that matter.

So you claim, and I'm sure you believe. But the reason we regulate many dangerous activities is because people who engage in those activities pose more of a threat to others than they care to admit. For example, we have speed limits because even though many people who drive fast believe that they're not posing a threat to other people, if they make a mistake at a high speed they can easily kill other people. We generally don't let people significantly increase the risk posed to folks around them - even if the ostensible reason they are creating that higher risk to other people is so that they themselves can feel safer.

If you're armed with a gun, you're vastly more dangerous than not. That's the whole point, when guns are owned with the intent of using them for self-defense. You pose more danger to innocent people if you make a mistake. You're a threat - not intentionally, but you pose a much greater danger to everyone around you while you're armed. All of those people who killed innocents who came to their doors? I'm sure if you asked them ex ante, they too would have insisted they weren't a threat to anyone. But it turns out they were.

First you say
I hope that I've been very clear in emphasizing that all of these are infrequent scenarios. The "day your number comes up" is pretty durn unlikely on both sides of the ledger - it's exceptionally unlikely that you will be killed by an intruder you don't know in your home, and it's exceptionally unlikely that you will accidentally kill an innocent person. But you have to consider both possibilities in whether you choose to have a gun or not. It's not like an umbrella, where "having it but not needing it" carries no consequence - and thus there's little balancing in deciding whether to have it and not need it versus need it but not have it.

You've reduced your argument to that of relative probabilities, essentially. You're now saying that the risk of some lawful gun owner accidentally shooting someone trumps the same lawful gun owner using it in the event of an emergency. You also say it's "pretty durn unlikely" that either scenario happens.


But then you say
If you're armed with a gun, you're vastly more dangerous than not. That's the whole point, when guns are owned with the intent of using them for self-defense. You pose more danger to innocent people if you make a mistake. You're a threat - not intentionally, but you pose a much greater danger to everyone around you while you're armed. All of those people who killed innocents who came to their doors? I'm sure if you asked them ex ante, they too would have insisted they weren't a threat to anyone. But it turns out they were.

...which is back to statistics of it all. One could make this same argument that poorly trained drivers are a threat to waaaaaaaaaaay more people than somebody with a racing pedigree when both are on the highway.

So why not ban cars?
Why not ban, well, everything while we're at it?

Here's the bottom line: The left's feelings and the relevance thereof are stopped dead cold where our rights to defend ourselves begin. If I want an enhanced ability to defend myself, I can do so, and that's pretty much the end of that.

And here's today's NextDoor incident report:

https://us1-photo.nextdoor.com/post_photos/a4/1f/a...

https://us1-photo.nextdoor.com/post_photos/c2/b9/c...

That's what's left of their door. Fortunately all the thieves wanted was her purse as after they kicked down the door they stole the purse and their car.

Funny, for something that seems to not happen a lot it seems to...happen a lot. And yes, the family was home.

All you folks who have the luxury of opining about guns and how icky they make you feel I'm guessing aren't in formerly safe neighborhoods now overrun with drug tents and/or RV rolling meth labs. You're not having stockpiles of propane tanks explode under bridges and you're not seeing businesses fleeing your downtown shopping districts.

You're probably also not living under insane left wing leadership that does everything in its power to make life as comfortable and as safe as possible for the criminal class at YOUR expense.

Some of us get to live with this $hit every day, and we're not happy about it.

Funny, for something that seems to not happen a lot it seems to...happen a lot.

What - another scenario in which having a gun would not have helped at all, and possibly would have made things worse? That doesn't really support your position. The whole point of a smash and grab like this is to not have any confrontation if there's someone in the house - you don't give them enough time to react before you grab what you want and scram. But there might have been enough time for the occupants to get the gun and try to shoot at them as they were leaving - which is both a crime and a recipe for hitting a bystander.

But if we're trading anecdotes, another instance of someone ruining their own life because they had a gun when they didn't need it - this time shooting a kid who was playing hide-and-seek on their property:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/05/09/l...

Again, one of the risks to the gun owner of owning a gun is that they'll destroy their own life by using it in a situation where it's not needed. Situations where that happens are pretty rare, thankfully. But situations where the gun would ever be needed and available at home are also pretty rare.

One could make this same argument that poorly trained drivers are a threat to waaaaaaaaaaay more people than somebody with a racing pedigree when both are on the highway.

So why not ban cars?

Exactly. We don't ban cars - but we do take into serious account the fact that they are very dangerous instruments that can cause serious injury or death when people make mistakes with them. So we have an enormous regulatory regime in place to reduce the chance of that happening: licensure (with regular renewal), registration of vehicles, inspection of vehicles to make sure they're safe, entire codes of law regulating the use and storage and operation of vehicles, and entire law enforcement agencies whose primary function is to monitor and enforce those laws. The specifics vary from state to state, but cars an enormously regulated. Yet if anyone suggests doing something analogous to even one aspect of automobile regulations for firearms, they're labelled a gun-grabber that hates freedom.

Imagine for a moment how ridiculous you would consider a "Constitutional Driving" movement to be. If people proposed that we eliminated having driver's licenses and vehicle registration - anyone who wants a car should have the right to get a car and drive a car without government having any role in possibly telling them "no." It's pretty obvious why that's a terrible idea - cars are very dangerous and quite capable of killing or injuring people if not used properly. Yet certain voices on "the right" advocate that carrying a gun around should similarly be free from any licensing, permit, or registration requirement.

We engage in balancing between the risks posed by dangerous items and the utility of having them. Swimming pools pose a danger to children; so when I put in a swimming pool at my home, I have to install fencing and/or a pool alarm to mitigate that risk. And sometimes that balancing leads to an outright prohibition. It's illegal for me to have dynamite in my house, regardless of whether I might want to - because the presence of dynamite poses a significant risk to other people, and the utility of allowing me to have dynamite at my house is minimal.

Here's the bottom line: The left's feelings and the relevance thereof are stopped dead cold where our rights to defend ourselves begin

Here's the bottom line: the right's "feelings" about crime and the relevance thereof are stopped dead cold where our rights to be protected against accidental gun deaths begin.

See how that doesn't work? Labelling a desire to avoid the demonstrated negative consequences of a policy as "feelings" isn't a winning argument. It's a sign you aren't going to engage with the argument.

The truth is that having widespread civilian ownership of firearms creates an increased risk to everyone. The argument in favor of allowing such firearms is not that such risks don't exist, or are merely "feelings" - it's that owners of firearms derive benefits from firearm ownership that are significant enough that they trump those risks, either in a consequentialist (they make us safer!) or deontological (they are our right!) way.

Apologies for the blank post. Had meant to hit 'Cancel.'

It was a very effective emphasis.

The truth is that having widespread civilian ownership of firearms creates an increased risk to everyone.

So do cars and kitchen knives under your logic, and we're not banning any of them.

albaby1: ...owners of firearms derive benefits from firearm ownership that are significant enough that they trump those risks, either in a consequentialist (they make us safer!)...

Perhaps it would be more accurate to write, "they give the us the illusion of being safer".

In fact, studies show that guns make households more dangerous. This study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found "people living in homes with guns face substantially higher risks of being fatally assaulted." And in households with guns, women face a much higher rate of fatality than men.

The researchers found that people who lived with handgun owners were 2.33 times as likely to become victims of homicide and 2.83 times as likely to die from homicides involving firearms. Among people killed at home, those living with handgun owners were 4.44 times more likely to be fatally shot than neighbors living in gun-free homes.



https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3...

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/han...

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-ho...

So do cars and kitchen knives under your logic, and we're not banning any of them.

As do automatic machine guns and home storage of dynamic, and we are de facto banning them (yes, I know the grandfather regulatory status of machine guns).

Again, the point is that we recognize the degree of danger of the risk of misuse, mistake, and accidents with dangerous items - and we adopt policy responses that take that into account. For things that are extremely dangerous with ordinary use that have minimal utility (fully automatic machine guns), we all-but-prohibit them. For items that are generally not very dangerous in ordinary use that have a lot of utility (kitchen knives) we have a very permissive regulatory regime. For items that are pretty dangerous in ordinary use that have a lot of utility (like cars), we allow them but have an extremely aggressive and stringent regulatory regime.

In fact, studies show that guns make households more dangerous. This study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found "people living in homes with guns face substantially higher risks of being fatally assaulted." And in households with guns, women face a much higher rate of fatality than men.

Humorous anecdote (to me, anyway)... My Dad was a VA internist. He made house calls to a very few close friends and relatives.
One such relative became housebound by age and decrepitude. His playboy days ended, the 'girlfriend' of many years began purchasing handguns, leaving them on tabletops here and there around the house, just in case the old fart decided he wanted to end it all. Inexpensive 38 and 380 imports, but enough for the old guy to do the deed if he was so inclined. My Dad would confiscate them when he saw them because, as Albaby informs us, the risk was absolutely unacceptable.

A burglar could have amassed a nice collection of pocket pistols from that one residence. We need federal regulations on all sales transfers, thefts...and serious penalties for violations of securing said firearms.

"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which compiles crime stats submitted by 15,875 of 18,674 U.S. law enforcement agencies around the country, estimates that more than $135 million worth of firearms were reported stolen by gun owners in 2020, the most recent year data is available. If we say each gun was valued at about $450 each (the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates the average price per stolen gun is between $400 and $500), that comes out to about 300,394 guns reported stolen from private owners in 2020.

In a 2017 survey of gun owners, Azrael and her colleagues arrived at a higher figure for guns reported missing each year, around 380,000."

https://www.thetrace.org/2021/10/firearm-average-l...

"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which compiles crime stats submitted by 15,875 of 18,674 U.S. law enforcement agencies around the country, estimates that more than $135 million worth of firearms were reported stolen by gun owners in 2020, the most recent year data is available. If we say each gun was valued at about $450 each (the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates the average price per stolen gun is between $400 and $500), that comes out to about 300,394 guns reported stolen from private owners in 2020.

___________________

To add a little perspective, if all guns were confiscated, then of course those criminals would not be stealing guns to commit their crimes. However, most if not all of them would continue their criminal activity substituting other weapons as the means to attack their now unarmed victims. Criminals would be emboldened by the certain knowledge that their victims would be unarmed.

If law abiding gun owners were stripped of their means to defend themselves, their homes, and their families, then the two million or so DGU's each year would result in a successful crime.

bighairymike: If law abiding gun owners were stripped of their means to defend themselves, their homes, and their families, then the two million or so DGU's each year would result in a successful crime.

The 1992 telephone survey by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, which found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by 'law-abiding' citizens in the United States has been repeatedly shown to be nonsense yet it persists because gun folk want it to be true... like some people believing in aliens.

Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias.

Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" 10% of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?" and 6% answered "Yes."

By extrapolating to the national population [as Kleck did in his DGU survey], we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets.

Wow, a million Americans have had contact with aliens.

Stop the presses.


https://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradict...

A few years ago before the left went ahead and weaponized the government I would have agreed to a number of things.

Now? Nope. Not agreeing to anything.

If they want someone to blame, they can blame themselves. They don't like to compromise and will label you as dangerous or evil when you even bring up certain subjects. Why hand someone who wants to slit my throat a knife while turning my back on them?

No thanks.

The tell in all these discussions is the 100% emotional arguments from the NPC's that never include anything but their maximalist policies. We're supposed to just go along with Their Feelz. Again, no thanks. Let them hide under their beds all day.

If law abiding gun owners were stripped of their means to defend themselves, their homes, and their families, then the two million or so DGU's each year would result in a successful crime.

That's certainly not true.

To start off, some chunk of those "DGU's" are going to be situations like the one Dope mentioned earlier in the thread. Guy's in the backyard, tries the door handle, and when an occupant shows up to the door he just leaves. If that occupant had a gun, they would have reported a DGU. But the gun had nothing to do with the crime being stopped - it was just their showing up that stopped it.

But there's another, more problematic chunk as well - the less tragic version of the situations we've mentioned on this thread. Guy goes to the wrong porch, pulls into the wrong driveway, tries to open the wrong car, kids play in the wrong yard - but instead of the occupant shooting and killing them, they shoot and miss, or just threaten them with a gun. The occupant thinks, "I've just prevented a crime!" - but the reality is that they just terrorized an innocent person.

The way these DGU surveys are conducted is all-but-guaranteed to generate these false positives. The surveys that yield these high numbers don't investigate or try to confirm the circumstances in which these "DGU's" happened - they just ask people if they've used their guns to defend themselves within the last X years. Of course people look back and decide that what happened was a DGU. "What kind of person threatens an innocent with a gun? A bad person. I'm not a bad person. So the person I threatened with my gun must have been about to commit a crime against me." That's why the results from surveys like the two million figure (which is probably the Kleck and Gertz survey from the mid-1990's) are wildly inconsistent with actual crime rates, often by an order of magnitude.

No, guns aren't preventing two million crimes per year.

Yeah - for most people, like the person in this anecdote, they'd be much better off not having a gun in the home

The statistic is a few years old, but based on crime data a firearm in the home was/is 22x more likely to be used against a resident of that home than an intruder. Including suicides.

Almost no one actually needs a firearm. Some exceptions would be people that live in bear country, for example. But in a city or suburb, sans copious wild creatures, no one needs one. IMHO, it's just fear. Not being pejorative. Fear is a real thing, and I think it's why a lot of folks buy firearms. The data do not support that fear, and indicate quite the reverse (i.e. you're in more danger if there's a firearm in the house).

Almost no one actually needs a firearm. - 1pg

------------------------------------------------------

Rosa Parks did not NEED to set in the front of the bus either. Where rights are concerned, there is no requirement to demonstrate need.

Rosa Parks did not actually sit in the front row of the bus. That is a commonly held misunderstanding.

She was actually seated in the first row of the "colored" section. The bus was full, and as a
white passenger boarded, she was ordered to vacate the seat for the new passenger, and refused.

Rosa Parks did not actually sit in the front row of the bus. That is a commonly held misunderstanding.

She was actually seated in the first row of the "colored" section. The bus was full, and as a
white passenger boarded, she was ordered to vacate the seat for the new passenger, and refused. - Flightdoc

-----------------

OK, but the point still stands... You do NOT need to demonstrate a need before you can exercise a right.

You do NOT need to demonstrate a need before you can exercise a right.

True. Though it is only recently (since Heller) that the SCOTUS has interpreted the 2A as they have. Previously, it was much more "common sense" (like for the first 200 or so years of the country's existence). They have expanded the "right" considerably, and I believe to the point of absurdity. But we already had that discussion a while back, so I won't bore you with a rehash here.

Rosa Parks did not NEED to set in the front of the bus either. Where rights are concerned, there is no requirement to demonstrate need.M/I>

Yup. Just like they don't NEED to express themselves on the internet. After all, the Founders never envisioned it, right?

Such bad argumentative tactics.

True. Though it is only recently (since Heller) that the SCOTUS has interpreted the 2A as they have. Previously, it was much more "common sense" (like for the first 200 or so years of the country's existence). They have expanded the "right" considerably, and I believe to the point of absurdity. But we already had that discussion a while back, so I won't bore you with a rehash here.

That's the problem with making pronouncements not grounded in objective fact: someone can argue the opposite easily.

The Founders clearly stated in the 2A and in the Federalist papers what they meant. The courts have only now finally gotten it right.

Depends which Federalist paper you read. I think the key ones (forget which numbers now) refer to states raising their own militias, and that the federal should not be able to interfere with that. Hence, the first thirteen words of the 2A. Heller (through Scalia) basically said "they didn't really mean that", and we now have the mess we have. And it won't be fixed in my lifetime, likely.

This is all further complicated by the Reconstruction Amendments which -roughly- said that the Constitution also applies to the states, which means that states are affected by 2A now. They weren't previously. I suspect that was an unintended consequence in what otherwise was a worthy set of amendments.

Taking this in reverse order:
This is all further complicated by the Reconstruction Amendments which -roughly- said that the Constitution also applies to the states, which means that states are affected by 2A now. They weren't previously. I suspect that was an unintended consequence in what otherwise was a worthy set of amendments.

The Constitution applies to all the states at all times, always has. Did we have a nonuniform first amendment (excepting slaves) prior to 1865, for example?\

I think the key ones (forget which numbers now) refer to states raising their own militias, and that the federal should not be able to interfere with that. Hence, the first thirteen words of the 2A. Heller (through Scalia) basically said "they didn't really mean that", and we now have the mess we have. And it won't be fixed in my lifetime, likely.

2A has always been about the right to bear arms. The militia part describes the right of the people to be armed:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01...

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition, that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures, which must precede and produce it.

Madison is CLEARLY SAYING that one of the central differences between Americans and the subjects of Europe is the ability of US citizens to potentially put a stop to unjust rule.

Rosa Parks did not NEED to set in the front of the bus either. Where rights are concerned, there is no requirement to demonstrate need.

I'm sure this has been said, so I'll risk repeating it.....sitting in the front of the bus does not hold the potential to directly wound or kill innocent people either on purpose or accidentally. This is equating apples to oranges.

The Constitution applies to all the states at all times, always has.

Not correct. Albaby gave a bit of a tutorial on this a while back. The Constitution only pertained to the federal, specifically limiting what the federal could do. Which is why state constitutions could get away with religious tests for office, for example. The Reconstruction Amendments changed that.

Madison is CLEARLY SAYING that one of the central differences between Americans and the subjects of Europe is the ability of US citizens to potentially put a stop to unjust rule.

On the part of the federal, yes. The major contention during the Convention was between Federalists and anti-Federalists. There was great concern about federal overreach, and subjugation of the States. Which is primarily why that was put in place (the 2A). States could form their own militias, at least in part, to oppose "unjust" rule by the federal.

Which, amusingly, is a big reason the Confederates lost the Civil War. The confederate states would hold back manpower to "defend their state", so the Confederacy wasn't able to field their full potential. Even so, Lee ran circles around the Union generals. It would have been a different outcome (likely) if Lee had been given 100% of the forces. Despite incompetent generals on the Union side, the fractured forces of the Confederacy were picked-off one by one. So much for the superiority of state militias.

This is equating apples to oranges.

No it isn't.
The crux of all this is that you view your fellow citizens as a threat to your safety.

Which is funny. Left wing voting is the result of much of society's ills today. No gun owner ever did that.

The Constitution applies to all the states at all times, always has. Did we have a nonuniform first amendment (excepting slaves) prior to 1865, for example?

As was pointed out downthread, the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states. It applied only to the Federal government. Only with the adoption of the 14th Amendment did the courts start 'incorporating' the Bill of Rights against the states.

So no, the states were not bound by the First Amendment prior to 1868.

The crux of all this is that you view your fellow citizens as a threat to your safety.

Interesting. I would have said that about you. You view your fellow citizens as a threat, which is why you have a gun. Pretty sure there aren't any bears or wolves in Seattle, so it can't be that.

Interesting. I would have said that about you. You view your fellow citizens as a threat, which is why you have a gun. Pretty sure there aren't any bears or wolves in Seattle, so it can't be that.

I view potential criminals as a threat, yes. Do I view all democrats with the same lens as you folks view Republicans? No. I've not gone over the bend.

But speaking of Seattle. Yesterday's NextDoor feed brought us the tale of the botched catalytic converter theft that ended up with shots fired. Drove by the car with its window shot out last night.

But what about today? Hmm:

Last night ~7:45 pm (on Fri, May 12), I was in the kitchen of our Queen Anne home looking out the window making some dinner when a shirtless, emaciated homeless man walking down the sidewalk in front of our house sets fire to 3 boxes I put out at the end of the driveway!!!

Thankfully, I witnessed it so I quickly grab my phone to call 911 and then the fire extinguisher. My wife is putting our 2 young kids to bed so I yell at her to grab the hose. Neither the hose nor the fire extinguisher fully put the fire out so we had to wait for the Fire Department to arrive and finish the job.

It's worth noting that the fire is next to a wooden telephone pole. If burnt, it could easily fall on our house or neighbor's house.

While on the phone with emergency dispatcher, the drunk/high arsonist casually walks freely down Warren Ave to the bottom of the hill. The 911 dispatcher advised that I "call the city"... um, YOU ARE THE CITY! Of course, both the police and firemen arrive and say "sorry, but our hands are tied" or in the case of the police, "we can't really do much to apprehend the guy....arresting a homeless man wouldn't be a priority for the city." Me: "how about an arsonist?!"

I shutter to think what would happen if we weren't home when this happened or if we were upstairs putting our 2 young kids (age 11 months and 3 years) to sleep at that time like normal?

I'm so tired of this crap. Voting differently.

Bolding mine. Here's hoping enough liberal Seattle voters get tired of the mess they've made and vote to do something about it this time.

Here's hoping enough liberal Seattle voters get tired of the mess they've made and vote to do something about it this time.

Well, I'm curious. Let's game that out. Suppose for a moment that you're the Grand Poohbah of Seattle - and you have the power in the scenario you describe to personally intervene and order the actions of the police or fire department or any other city employees. What, exactly, would you do?

Let's assume for the moment that this person is homeless, mentally ill, and has substance abuse problems. What's your solution? Do you order the police to arrest him? If so, what do you think actually happens if he's arrested?** Do you increase the taxes of Seattleites to provide him with social services, mental health care, and a place to live? If you don't, what's going to be different in a few days?

So, what's your call on this specific person? How do you, as Temporary Boss of Seattle, deal with him?

Albaby

**Hint - he hasn't committed arson:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.48...

You view your fellow citizens as a threat, which is why you have a gun. - 1pg

------------------------

You are wrong about that. I don't view fellow citizens as a threat at all. However I do view criminals as a threat. One way to tell the difference is that a law abiding citizen will not be breaking into my home or attempting to harm a me or a family member or an innocent civilian. If fact, I am safer to the extent there are more citizens who will to come to the aid of another citizen under attack because the police cannot be everywhere and when they do show up, it is usually to investigate a crime that has already occurred.

The only thing I have to fear from fellow la abiding citizens in general is that too many of them want to take away the ability for me to defend myself and my family.

I don't view fellow citizens as a threat at all. However I do view criminals as a threat. One way to tell the difference is that a law abiding citizen will not be breaking into my home or attempting to harm a me or a family member or an innocent civilian.

But like all humans, you're not going to be infallible in assessing whether people are breaking into your home, or attempting to harm you or another person. In fact, in situations where you might actually be tempted to reach for your gun - unusual circumstances where you're experiencing fear and anxiety - you might not be very good at it at all. We've seen numerous tragic examples of that in the recent news. Gun owners who viewed their fellow citizens as a threat even when they weren't doing anything criminal.

Going to the wrong porch, going to the wrong car, going down the wrong driveway, playing hide and seek in the wrong back yard. Someone's system gets flooded with fear and adrenaline, and a mix of imperfect information and firearms results in the tragic destruction of the lives of both the shooter and the target.

And boy - every time you bring up those 2 million DGU's, it just reminds me that those surveys are basically a catalog of countless fellow citizens being mistaken for criminal - and terrorized because of it. Again, the main criticism of the high-number DGU's is that if they were correct, it would mean that the sampled population was experiencing a rate of crime that was an order of magnitude or more higher than other people in their community. Since that's extremely unlikely, the more likely explanation is that people are reporting DGU's when no crime was actually happening. Some are going to be misremembering timing (telescoping older events into the more recent year), some will be misremembering a scenario that didn't really involve a threat or a gun....but the really tragic bundle of false DGU's are the ones where the gun owner flashed or threatened with their gun and there was no crime about to happen. Just innocent people looking or acting a way that scared them.

If fact, I am safer to the extent there are more citizens who will to come to the aid of another citizen under attack....

Unless, of course, those citizens aren't being entirely accurate in their threat assessment. And unless, of course, you yourself are happening to look or act in a way that scares them. It's easy to talk about being safer if there are more armed citizens out there fighting crime....unless you're a black man jogging in a white neighborhood, and those citizens are 'coming to the aid' of their fellow citizens by shooting you. Or you're a black man who ends up on the wrong porch by mistake, and the occupant erroneously decides you're a threat.

People whose appearance or actions are such that other people are quick to put them in the "criminal" or "thug" basket don't have that luxury. They generally don't feel safer when you increase the number of amateurs and vigilantes that start dishing out "aid" to their fellow citizens with deadly force.

You're imagining only the scenarios in which things go right. When people who (generally) have no training in law enforcement or threat assessment manage to correctly determine whether the person whose appearance or actions are scaring them are actually doing anything criminal that should be legitimately responded to with deadly force or the threat of deadly force. Sadly, there's a million or two self-reported DGU's - and some tragic headlines - that show that those aren't the only scenarios.

When people who (generally) have no training in law enforcement or threat assessment manage to correctly determine whether the person whose appearance or actions are scaring them are actually doing anything criminal = albaby

------------------

If one or more visitors is breaking a window or kicking in my door at 3AM, I submit it is safe to assume they are not there selling girl scout cookies.

Even in that scenario, I intend to follows NRA advice to barricade in a bedroom, let the intruder know where I am, and that the police have been called. If they simply steal some stuff and leave, then that is the best outcome. If however they breech my barricade, that is the point where I will defend myself so long as you allow me the means to do so.

The statistic is a few years old, but based on crime data a firearm in the home was/is 22x more likely to be used against a resident of that home than an intruder. Including suicides.

I'm 72 and that's been true since I was 16. I remember my father discovering that and hiding his 45 in one part of his closet, and putting the ammo in another room in a locked drawer. I'm 72 now.

If one or more visitors is breaking a window or kicking in my door at 3AM, I submit it is safe to assume they are not there selling girl scout cookies.

Even in that scenario, I intend to follows NRA advice to barricade in a bedroom, let the intruder know where I am, and that the police have been called. If they simply steal some stuff and leave, then that is the best outcome. If however they breech my barricade, that is the point where I will defend myself so long as you allow me the means to do so.

Yes, but that's the logical fallacy - imagining that specific scenario when it is so much less likely to ever happen to you than, say, someone fumbling at your doorknob at a more reasonable time because they're at the wrong house.

It reminds me very much of a conversation I once had with someone who refused to wear a seatbelt, because they didn't want to be trapped in a burning or submerged car. Which, yes - if you sit there and imagine the scenario where the car is burning or submerged and the seatbelt release is damaged, in that one specific scenario you're safer without the seatbelt. But the thing is - that's not the scenario you should base your decision on. You're vastly more likely to find yourself in any one of a number of other types of accidents where the seatbelt saves your life. You're making the wrong choice by focusing on the one scenario where the seatbelt hurts, even if it's true that such a scenario exists, because a correct appraisal of the relative probability of accidents shows that wearing the seatbelt is the right call.

For most people, imagining the scenario where there's a random intruder who for no apparent reason is hell-bent on harming you as their specific goal is the exact same type of error. Sure, in that particular imagining, you're better off having the gun - but there's so little chance of that being the situation when you use your gun (for most people) that it's a mistake to think of that case. Most people are vastly more likely to encounter much more ambiguous situations, when their thinking is clouded by fear and adrenaline and their rational determination to "follow NRA advice" goes out the window after being awakened by something that scares them.

That's not true of all people. If your abusive ex-boyfriend keeps violating the restraining order and making threats (for example) you very well may face the type of particularized high risk of someone coming into your house with intent to do you harm. But for the average person? Focusing on the one scenario where using the gun is clearly and only beneficial to you, rather than putting that in the context of the countless other scenarios where it ends up destroying your life (and perhaps someone else's).

Oh, and just to wrap this thread up.

The guy who said "She had no face"? Yeah. About that...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-mall-shooting-m...

The Allen Police Department on Friday issued a statement contradicting Spainhouer's account, saying detectives had "determined that Mr. Spainhouer is not a credible incident witness."

Uhhh...

"Allen Police Department wants to inform the public of discrepancies with statements made by a witness to several media outlets. Following the shooting at Allen Premium Outlets, Mr. Steven Spainhouer of McKinney, Texas gave multiple public accounts of his actions," the statement read. "Inconsistencies between these public accounts and investigative facts led Allen Police Department to conduct a follow-up interview. During this interview, detectives determined that Mr. Spainhouer is not a credible incident witness."

According to the police department, "Mr. Spainhouer arrived between 3:44 and 3:52 p.m. and was not first on the scene, nor was he on the property while gunfire was occurring." The department also said that Spainhouer "did not perform Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or administer first aid" and "did not move a deceased mother who was covering a live child."

"As inaccurate reports can be prevalent in such situations, it is essential to confirm information before sharing it," police said in Friday's statement. "Please take note of this to prevent unintentional spreading of misinformation."

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.