What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[RDKirk]

I have been threatened with a knife before, yeah.

Well, you and I differ in our attitudes in that regard. I, personally, can be killed by a knife--and my wife with me can be killed by a knife--so I don't regard a knife-wielding assailant as someone I need not fear. At this point, my wife and I are too old to outrun a younger man wielding a knife, and I'm not ready to watch her stabbed to death.

Clearly you have a different personal mindset on that issue, but your personal mindset does not dictate what mine should be.

 

[RDKirk]

To RD Kirk: Every statistic I've ever read has shown that people who have guns in their homes are more likely to be victims of gun violence than those who don't.

Does owning a gun make you safer?



10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down – Mother Jones

I do realize that we have a Second Amendment and so if you and others choose to put your lives and the lives of those you love at greater risk by keeping guns I can't stop you.

Nearly half of American homes have a gun in them.

It is not true that nearly half of American homes have had a gun death in them.

 

[RDKirk]

That's fine. I'm not claiming any moral authority to determine what measures are proper for your personal safety. I'm just saying that the best way to bring about an end to the terrible mass shooting which plague the USA is to start by ending the current situation which has widespread and legal availability of guns in private hands.

Your second sentence does what your first sentence claims not to do.

The "best way" to bring about an end to the terrible plague of daily violence in America (which includes mass shootings--which you personally hear about in the media from time to time and then go "Oh! Terrible") is to find out why there is a terrible plague of violence in America and do something about that.

Otherwise, a War on Guns is going to do the same thing across all America that the War on Drugs has done to black men. And like the War on Drugs, a War on Guns is going to be a war on black men long before it hits the white community.

I have zero interest in giving the police broader powers to invade my life than they have now.

 

[RDKirk]

When is safety ever "guaranteed"?

The courts in the US have ruled already that the government has no responsibility for my safety. Specifically, according to the courts,--if I call 911, the police have no legal responsibility to respond.

But in that case, it's immoral for the government to also restrict my ability to do what I believe necessary for my own safety.

 

[Armoured]

The courts in the US have ruled already that the government has no responsibility for my safety. Specifically, according to the courts,--if I call 911, the police have no legal responsibility to respond.

But in that case, it's immoral for the government to also restrict my ability to do what I believe necessary for my own safety.

The logical conclusion to this line of argument is "Gatling flamethrowers for everybody!"

For the argument to work, you'd need to be able to demonstrate that you are demonstrably safer armed than unarmed, not in highly dubious and overwrought cherry picked examples, but in general.

So, can you show that?

 

[RDKirk]

The logical conclusion to this line of argument is "Gatling flamethrowers for everybody!"

No, that's the fallacy of rushing to absurdity.

For the argument to work, you'd need to be able to demonstrate that you are demonstrably safer armed than unarmed, not in highly dubious and overwrought cherry picked examples, but in general.

So, can you show that?

Yes.

 

[Armoured]

No, that's the fallacy of rushing to absurdity.

That's the standard response to the question, no one's ever explained where the line between "sensible self defence option" and "well now you're just being silly" is. I invite you to try, though. Frankly, I think it's kneejerk dodge to a question that leads to uncomfortable conclusions, but please prove me wrong?

Yes.

Go ahead...?

 

[Dave-W]

Well, the ideal situation for the US (AFAIC) would be to ban private gun ownership.

And now people can make a hand gun on a 3D printer. True the barrel will only work for a couple of shots - but that can be fixed by inserting a reamed out and polished steel tube.

And metal 3D printers are now starting to come on line as well.

There are always ways around an ownership ban.

 

[RDKirk]

That's the standard response to the question, no one's ever explained where the line between "sensible self defence option" and "well now you're just being silly" is. I invite you to try, though. Frankly, I think it's kneejerk dodge to a question that leads to uncomfortable conclusions, but please prove me wrong?Go ahead...?

Nobody here in Texas is walking around with a flamethrower.

It has always been legal to walk around town with a rifle, and it doesn't even require spending hundreds of dollars for the license to carry a handgun--but nobody carries a rifle.

We have a legal environment in which people can legally walk around with heavy weapons even without spending the several hundred dollars it costs to be licensed...yet nobody does that.

The most prevalent discussion among people who are licensed to carry a weapon is how best to keep it concealed.

So you have tot prove that everyone would want to carry a flamethrower or else admit you're being absurd.

 

[LoAmmi]

Well, you and I differ in our attitudes in that regard. I, personally, can be killed by a knife--and my wife with me can be killed by a knife--so I don't regard a knife-wielding assailant as someone I need not fear. At this point, my wife and I are too old to outrun a younger man wielding a knife, and I'm not ready to watch her stabbed to death.

Clearly you have a different personal mindset on that issue, but your personal mindset does not dictate what mine should be.

Never said it did. I spoke for myself.

However, I assume you would not disagree that a person with a gun is more dangerous than a person with a gun.

 

[RDKirk]

Never said it did. I spoke for myself.

But you don't want your feelings about yourself expressed as public policy mandatory upon me, right?

However, I assume you would not disagree that a person with a gun is more dangerous than a person with a gun.

Yes, I am.

That is the intention, because otherwise I'm a fat old man with a fat old wife who are easy prey.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes, I am.

Seriously? So, just to give a hypothetical. If I gave a toddler a knife and another toddler a gun, you would consider both of these as dangerous as each other? I don't recall many stories of toddlers stabbing someone on accident when they get hold of a knife, but there certainly are stories of them getting their hands on a gun and shooting someone.

 

[RDKirk]

Seriously? So, just to give a hypothetical. If I gave a toddler a knife and another toddler a gun, you would consider both of these as dangerous as each other? I don't recall many stories of toddlers stabbing someone on accident when they get hold of a knife, but there certainly are stories of them getting their hands on a gun and shooting someone.

Nobody wants a toddler to have either one.

Nobody wants a toddler behind the wheel of an automobile, either.

It's absurd to base laws for adults on the capabilities of toddlers.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

I wouldn't be very afraid of someone attempting to rob me, even with a knife, but a gun is a game changer.

Maybe but there are millions of people out there that are too old, too weak or too scared to defend themselves from things like guns, knifes, ball bats, rocks, bricks, hand tools, bicycle locks or even other peoples fists...

 

[LoAmmi]

Nobody wants a toddler to have either one.

Nobody wants a toddler behind the wheel of an automobile, either.

It's absurd to base laws for adults on the capabilities of toddlers.

Well, I don't know what to say when the obvious advantages of a handheld, powerful projectile weapon that can be used by nearly everybody in the world regardless of physical strength are being dismissed and it is being claimed a melee weapon that requires close proximity and enough physical strength to overwhelm the victim and stab them is just as dangerous. I'm not claiming they aren't dangerous, my claim is that a gun is more dangerous. Thus why guns have pretty much universally replaced melee weapons in any form of combat or self-defense. Don't see many people clamoring to protect the right to carry swords.

Since knifes are just as dangerous, to you, and they are much cheaper, why aren't combat units around the world giving their people knives and saving money on the more expensive firearms?

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Oh my....

How often do you need to have a gun massacre before it becomes a "problem"...?

So then what is the/your solution that isn't going to work???

 

[Neostarwcc]

What I don't understand is in some states (like Texas) we're allowed to own automatic weapons. What the heck do we need to own an automatic weapon for unless it's shooting up a school or something? Shouldn't a 9MM be good enough for most people instead of having to own a gun that's made and designed for warfare?

 

[LoAmmi]

Maybe but there are millions of people out there that are too old, too weak or too scared to defend themselves from things like guns, knifes, ball bats, rocks, bricks, hand tools, bicycle locks or even other peoples fists...

Alrighty. If every form of weapon is just as dangerous as a gun, why advocate for guns? If they were banned, you could just pick up a knife, ball bat, rock, brick, hand tool, bicycle lock, or even just use your fists and be just as effective.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Quite a few people since, you know, several dozen people were just mowed down at a concert, and it is becoming a more common problem. I think this at least warrants an honest discussion.

So how many times has the discussion been had and no "viable" solutions have been proposed???

 

[LoAmmi]

So how many times has the discussion been had and no solutions have been proposed???

Citizens could just carry knives though! Or is a gun somehow more effective now that a criminal has it?