Are you afraid of guns?

[Totovader]

Because the intent of self defense is often enough announced itself by the person ? And frankly what other reason would you have to carry a gun in public place ? Give it a sun bathing ?

I'm not following. You're saying that you can't think of a reason for a person to carry a gun except for sun bathing, therefore the only possible reason is malice... seems like there's a fallacy in there somewhere...

 

[Babbylonian]

People are not afraid or gun in my experience. People are afraid of persons which feel the needs to carry on or keep it home a tool used solely to target other human. The "sport" usage being a second or only accompanying the defense usage.

If somebody felt the need to carry a sword on them or a sword at home for defense, I would be wary of them identically, and I have a sword at home for decoration (and a hunting bow, and for a long time I had a rifle sued for sport).

it is not the tool people are wary of, it is the owner in conjunction of the desired usage.

Yup. I go through most of my life interacting with people who are not carrying guns. That means those who do carry guns are the "weird" ones. They're either off-duty/plainclothes police officers (FWIW, I think off-duty police officers should not be carrying, and that if we could ban civilian handguns, after a time, they wouldn't all need to carry on duty)...or they're civilians who themselves are so afraid of the world that they can't go to a coffee shop, store, or restaurant without a firearm.

Am I afraid of guns? Yeah, when the bar is set so incredibly low for handgun ownership and carrying. I don't understand how I'm supposed to operate under the assumption that most of the people carrying a gun not only are responsible but have good intentions generally. My concern rises when when I think about the likely reasons such people decide to carry - their own irrational fears and/or lack of genitalia confidence.

See, the thing is that even if my fear of [people with] guns is [statistically] irrational, the world around me is not any more dangerous because of it. The fears of the person carrying a gun are [statistically] more likely to result in harm.

 

[Totovader]

I'm asking you, specifically (and briefly) what is the problem? At first I presumed you linked the studies because they would support your position. Now you seem to be saying you linked them because they don't support your position.

I'm not sure how you got confused. I'm not sure I can help you if you're feigning confusion. Go back and read the OP where I'm referencing medical studies and the inherent problems. If that doesn't clarify it for you, I'm not sure there's anything I can do.

As I pointed out earlier: you and I have already discussed this issue and you backed away from the debate at the point that I brought up the contradiction in your argument: accepting one seriously flawed study because it agreed with your position, and then rejecting a different study for illegitimate reasons.

Tell us what we're supposed to learn, what we should look for, if we open those links. It just seems to me you refuse to discuss those questions because you don't want to have to commit to anything. You want to be able to craft a position in relation to how other people respond. If you don't say, "It shows A, B and C" you can't be wrong.

I already discussed them in the OP: I made a claim, I backed up that claim with logic, someone asked me for the original links so I posted them. You cannot pretend to be ignorant on these issues because you and I have already discussed them and it's right there in the OP.

 

[fuelair]

I think everybody should be able to carry an arbitrary range of destructive devices. It's only fair - I don't find guns very interesting. Things that go bang, however....








(ETA: for any intelligence agency reading this posting, yes, this is sarcasm...)

I prefer explosive devices myself!!! But, guns are legal.

 

[Totovader]

Yup. I go through most of my life interacting with people who are not carrying guns. That means those who do carry guns are the "weird" ones. They're either off-duty/plainclothes police officers (FWIW, I think off-duty police officers should not be carrying, and that if we could ban civilian handguns, after a time, they wouldn't all need to carry on duty)...or they're civilians who themselves are so afraid of the world that they can't go to a coffee shop, store, or restaurant without a firearm.

Am I afraid of guns? Yeah, when the bar is set so incredibly low for handgun ownership and carrying. I don't understand how I'm supposed to operate under the assumption that most of the people carrying a gun not only are responsible but have good intentions generally. My concern rises when when I think about the likely reasons such people decide to carry - their own irrational fears and/or lack of genitalia confidence.

See, the thing is that even if my fear of [people with] guns is [statistically] irrational, the world around me is not any more dangerous because of it. The fears of the person carrying a gun are [statistically] more likely to result in harm.

1) Would you be in favor of banning all guns?

2) Assuming that your fear is irrational, are you claiming there is no consequence to that?

 

[Unabogie]

That was like the 4th comment in this thread...

Which just proves this whole thread is a game of gotcha. You asked "are you afraid of guns"? And I pointed out that I'm afraid of people with guns because people shoot other people with them. Hence, if you want to carry your gun around like a security blanket then you're doing it because you think it will make you scary to the "bad guys" and it is you that is making the claim that guns are scary. Or else how could they be a deterrent? My position is that the only guns that aren't "scary" are the ones that are rendered useless so they cease to be a threat to me. That's not me advocating throwing all guns away, although my interactions with gun nuts on this forum are pushing me more an more towards that position every day. I've said before that I think guns should be legal, highly regulated, and the mark of a moron. What I mean by this is that I think they should be legally attainable, but with heavy strings attached to be able to confiscate them from crazy or irresponsible people. For instance, I think the penalty for letting your gun into the hands of a kid who shoots someone should be 15 years in prison. But as for the "mark of a moron", I think that society should work to make gun owners as uncool as smokers. And we should tax the **** out of them to pay for all the societal costs they cause the rest of us. But most of all, I want there to be a balance between their right to own those guns, and my right to be free from the results of that stupid choice. Go buy your gun. Fondle it lovingly. But keep it in the house, or take it to the range. If you bring it to Target, then you're claiming that your rights trump mine, and I don't consent to that and I'm working to fight it.

Hopefully that clears up my actual views, which I've stated here many times before.

 

[tyr_13]

Let's look at this section:



This is creating a strawman or simply lying about the content of studies that show guns in a negative light.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._causes_higher_suicide_rates_study_shows.html



http://cel.webofknowledge.com/Inbou...ID=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord



http://cel.webofknowledge.com/Inbou...ID=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord



http://cel.webofknowledge.com/Inbou...ID=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord

I could go on.

Maybe those are the studies he was talking about, but I doubt it as they don't appear to be from medical journals and none show a 3x increase, which is what he specifically mentioned. I wouldn't make the argument that all studies are flawed or that there is no increase in successful suicides. The presence of good studies in now way excuses using bad studies. I'll wait to see what he was actually referencing. Intentionally using wrong numbers would be a dishonest thing to do.

I'm asking you, specifically (and briefly) what is the problem? At first I presumed you linked the studies because they would support your position. Now you seem to be saying you linked them because they don't support your position.

Tell us what we're supposed to learn, what we should look for, if we open those links. It just seems to me you refuse to discuss those questions because you don't want to have to commit to anything. You want to be able to craft a position in relation to how other people respond. If you don't say, "It shows A, B and C" you can't be wrong.

The only person you're fooling is yourself.

He posted them for the benefit of Tsukasa Buddha and myself, to clear up a minor point. It wasn't about what you're reading into it. Please, I know these discussions get heated but don't fall into the same trap you're accusing him of. There are people arguing in fairly good faith, even if they throw out some imprecise and counter productive language from time to time (and as always, this is on both sides).

As for your issue that people don't actually want to ban guns, on one level you're correct. I'm a gun control advocate, and I don't want guns banned or in effect banned. However, there are plenty of gun control advocates whose goal is to get as many guns as possible out of everyone's hands through whatever means. They're not against gun bans, they just don't think they can do them. There are not only several examples from posters on this forum, but in real life. You and I live in a state that has banned guns based on cosmetic, ergonomic, and safety features. Non-gun defensive tools are outlawed or of questionable legality. They would do the same to guns and only haven't because they can't right now. Again, this isn't to say that all gun control advocates (or even most gun control advocates) are doing this, but that it's a very real issue. The 'guns for everyone! More guns! Macho guns! Small penis! Cowboy!' chest beaters also exist, but it's unfair to paint all or even most gun owners as that either. Not that that stops the people here on JREF from doing that, and not being called on it, in every gun thread (and in some that aren't even gun threads). They're (the NRA types) are a problem too, and it would be disingenuous of gun owners to pretend they don't. So please, don't pretend that the gun ban (or what are in effect gun bans like the 'single shot always locked up at a gun range, with million dollar insurance policy') don't exist and are not a problem.

 

[Babbylonian]

2) Assuming that your fear is irrational, are you claiming there is no consequence to that?

My fear is personally, statistically irrational. In other words, as an individual I am statistically very unlikely to be shot and killed.

 

[Dcdrac]

I am not afraid of guns as inanimate objects, if I lived in the USA, I would be afraid of the fact that unstable people can currently easily bypass the background checks by going through the private sale route, and a deadly weapon ending up in the hands of nutter.

 

[Totovader]

Which just proves this whole thread is a game of gotcha. You asked "are you afraid of guns"? And I pointed out that I'm afraid of people with guns, because people shoot other people with them. Hence, if you want to carry your gun around like a security blanket then you're doing it because you think it will make you scary to the "bad guys". You are the one making the claim that guns are a deterrent. You are the one agreeing that guns are scary, or else how could they be a deterrent? My position is that the only guns that aren't "scary" are the ones that are rendered useless so they become a zero percent threat to me. That's not me advocating throwing all guns away, although my interactions with gun nuts on this forum is pushing me more an more towards that position every day. I've said before that I think guns should be legal, highly regulated, and the mark of a moron. What I mean by this is that I think they should be legally attainable, but with heavy strings attached to be able to confiscate them from crazy or irresponsible people. I think the penalty for letting your gun into the hands of a kid who shoots someone should be 15 years in prison. I think that society should work to make gun owners as uncool as smokers. And we should tax the **** out of them to pay for all the societal costs they cause the rest of us. But most of all, I want there to be a balance between their right to own those guns, and my right to be free from the results of that stupid choice. Go buy your gun. Fondle it lovingly. But keep it in the house, or take it to the range.

This.

This is an example of a gun control advocate not being honest. On the one hand stating that it would be great to eliminate all guns, and then in the other stating that they would be a proponent of ridiculously strict regulation.

That isn't a "gotcha" it's just the truth- it's the logical inconsistency in your argument.

If you bring it to Target, then you're claiming that your rights trump mine, and I don't consent to that and I'm working to fight it.

Hold the phone. What rights of yours am I trumping by carrying a weapon?

 

[fuelair]

I think everybody should be able to carry an arbitrary range of destructive devices. It's only fair - I don't find guns very interesting. Things that go bang, however....








(ETA: for any intelligence agency reading this posting, yes, this is sarcasm...)

I prefer explosive devices myself!!! But, guns are legal.

 

[Unabogie]

This.

This is an example of a gun control advocate not being honest.

So I'm the second person you've decided you just won't believe thinks what they claim they think. You're acting like a little child who covers his ears and whines "la la la I can't hear you". So if you won't take me at my word when I explain my position on something, why should I care what you have to say? You're not engaging in a discussion. I don't know quite what you get out of this, but it's not enlightenment.

On the one hand stating that it would be great to eliminate all guns, and then in the other stating that they would be a proponent of ridiculously strict regulation.

Oh? What did I propose that would be ridiculously restrictive? The one policy prescription I made was that if your gun finds its way into the hands of little Johnny who shoots his three year old sister, you're going to jail for a long time. What part of that do you feel is unfair? Is it really so hard to keep track of your deadly weapons?

That isn't a "gotcha" it's just the truth- it's the logical inconsistency in your argument.

Yeah, it's a gotcha. Since you're not interested in what I actually think.

Hold the phone. What rights of yours am I trumping by carrying a weapon?

My right to be free of guns if I so choose. I don't want you and your gun toting friends around me or my family. I don't trust you. You seem irrational and irresponsible. You believe in conspiracy theories. Like minded folks go on shooting rampages and camp out at "ranches" talking about Agenda 21. My right to be free of these nut bars is just as important as your right to carry your happy toy.

 

[boooeee]

The rate of murder by corrupt officers is 32 per 100k, and for CCW permit holders it's .7 per 100k. That means: as an innocent person you are 46 times more likely to die by a corrupt cop than by a CCW permit holder.

I don't think that follows.

The rate of murder by Jeffrey Dahmers is 1 per 1, and for CCW permit holders it's 0.7 per 100k. That means you are 100,000 times more likely to die at the hands of Jeffrey Dahmer than a CCW permit holder.

 

[Totovader]

I don't think that follows.

The rate of murder by Jeffrey Dahmers is 1 per 1, and for CCW permit holders it's 0.7 per 100k. That means you are 100,000 times more likely to die at the hands of Jeffrey Dahmer than a CCW permit holder.

That's why it would be dishonest to use the term "more likely" in that scenario. We wouldn't compare such a small sample size in the first place, but even if we did, between cops and CCW permit holders combined, you should be more afraid of Jeffrey Dahmer. Doesn't really mean that all statistics go out the window, though.

 

[Totovader]

So I'm the second person you've decided you just won't believe thinks what they claim they think. You're acting like a little child who covers his ears and whines "la la la I can't hear you". So if you won't take me at my word when I explain my position on something, why should I care what you have to say? You're not engaging in a discussion. I don't know quite what you get out of this, but it's not enlightenment.

If you can't present a logically consistent argument, why should I care what you have to say?

Oh? What did I propose that would be ridiculously restrictive? The one policy prescription I made was that if your gun finds its way into the hands of little Johnny who shoots his three year old sister, you're going to jail for a long time. What part of that do you feel is unfair? Is it really so hard to keep track of your deadly weapons?

Yeah, it's a gotcha. Since you're not interested in what I actually think.

Actually, I'm fascinated by what you think- it just doesn't necessarily mean you're right.

My right to be free of guns if I so choose. I don't want you and your gun toting friends around me or my family. I don't trust you. You seem irrational and irresponsible. You believe in conspiracy theories. Like minded folks go on shooting rampages and camp out at "ranches" talking about Agenda 21. My right to be free of these nut bars is just as important as your right to carry your happy toy.

See, this is where you really start to lose me. You believe in a "right to be free of guns if I so choose." If we can just make up stuff like that, I... want a right to have you provide me with a ham sammich.

I actually don't believe in conspiracy theories. I spent quite a few years of my life debunking conspiracy theories. The fact that you demonstrate the same behaviors and arguments as a conspiracist is fascinating to me.

 

[boooeee]

That's why it would be dishonest to use the term "more likely" in that scenario. We wouldn't compare such a small sample size in the first place, but even if we did, between cops and CCW permit holders combined, you should be more afraid of Jeffrey Dahmer. Doesn't really mean that all statistics go out the window, though.

I think they're equally dishonest, which was my point. There are a lot of CCW permit holders out there. Even if each one has less propensity for murder than Jeffrey Dahmer, I run into a lot more of the former than latter, hence it is rational to be more concerned about CCW permit holders than rampaging Jeffrey Dahmers (or corrupt cops).

 

[NoahFence]

It wasn't Senators plural, it was one Senator. Her assault weapon ban was proposed twenty years ago. Her handgun ban was more recent but it only involved one state and it failed.
If you had said 'a Senator from California once proposed' I would've agreed with you. Only you said gun control advocates, implying what's behind the motives of the gun control movement in general. I asked you to back that up. You don't seem to be able to do that.

I remind you, I'm on the fence. Convince me you're right and I'll agree. So far you're not doing that.

Ugh....
There's that whole reality thing again. Quit it!

 

[Unabogie]

If you can't present a logically consistent argument, why should I care what you have to say?

So you don't care what I think?

Actually, I'm fascinated by what you think- it just doesn't necessarily mean you're right.

Wait, you do care what I think?

I guess being logically consistent doesn't mean what you think it means?

See, this is where you really start to lose me. You believe in a "right to be free of guns if I so choose." If we can just make up stuff like that, I... want a right to have you provide me with a ham sammich.

I actually don't believe in conspiracy theories. I spent quite a few years of my life debunking conspiracy theories. The fact that you demonstrate the same behaviors and arguments as a conspiracist is fascinating to me.

And yet you think that all gun control advocates are hiding their real, secret intent? Again, I don't think it means what you think it means.

As for my rights, they are what we as a society want them to be. If the law doesn't recognize a right -- such as women's right to vote, or slaves' rights to be free -- then we fight to make it law. I contend that I have the right to be free of the gun nutters and their gun fetish. I don't want you or your friends bringing your guns around my family. I don't trust you. I don't think you know what you're doing with those weapons since you insist they aren't "scary". Therefore, as long as you keep them away from me, I'm ok with gun ownership. If you insist that you have the right to carry them in public places and around my kids and around my friends, and that my objections are to be ignored, then I'll start objecting to you legally owning a gun because that sounds unhinged to me. Straight up whackadoodle.

 

[newyorkguy]

...As for your issue that people don't actually want to ban guns, on one level you're correct. I'm a gun control advocate, and I don't want guns banned or in effect banned. However, there are plenty of gun control advocates whose goal is to get as many guns as possible out of everyone's hands through whatever means...

I agree with you for the most part. I'm not advocating a gun ban nor do I "secretly" want one. What I would like is to see the U.S. lose it's crown as "Most Gunshot Victims - First World Nation." What I was pointing out was, the OP tends to dramatize positions and overstate them. I know he does that -- and you know it too -- to make them easier to knock down. My feeling is, if this issue is going to be resolved it's people like us in the middle who will have to resolve it. People like the OP are at the outer ends trying to divide people.

So please, don't pretend that the gun ban (or what are in effect gun bans like the 'single shot always locked up at a gun range, with million dollar insurance policy') don't exist and are not a problem...

I can't pretend it's not a problem because I'm not familiar with the single-shot-always-locked-million-dollar-policy.

 

[Totovader]

I think they're equally dishonest, which was my point. There are a lot of CCW permit holders out there. Even if each one has less propensity for murder than Jeffrey Dahmer, I run into a lot more of the former than latter, hence it is rational to be more concerned about CCW permit holders than rampaging Jeffrey Dahmers (or corrupt cops).

But now you're confusing two different issues: the likelihood of running into Jeffrey Dahmer is not the same as the likelihood that he will kill you given that you have run into him. Assuming the likelihood of death is 100% if you run into Jeffrey Dahmer (which, I have to stress is impossible), then you have a 0% chance of surviving, given that you have run into Jeffrey Dahmer. Every time you run into Jeffrey Dahmer you roll the 0 sided die and end up dead.

What you have confused is called the Gambler's Fallacy: every time you run into a cop, it's not adding the likelihood together, it's rolling the die again (a very large multi-sided die).

To demonstrate it another way:

You have flipped a fair coin three times and it has come up heads all three times: H H H

What's the probability the next flip will be heads?

Answer: 50%