Statistically speaking, people that have conceal carry licenses are less likely to engage in criminal activity than the average person, and less likely to shoot a person in general. The people to worry about are the people that carry firearms without having a valid carry license. (This doesn’t apply in the relatively few states that don’t require permits to carry concealed firearms.) Essentially, people that obey one law–getting a permit before they carry a firearm–tend to be likely to obey most laws.
Fair enough, though a person with a gun is much more likely to shoot me than a person without a gun. Any measure to reduce the amount of people in my vicinity carrying guns has my full support. If 1/1000 (number pulled out of my ass obviously) gun owners end up shooing someone, and you reduce the amount of people around me carrying guns from 1000 to 10, you’ve just dramatically increased my statistical probability of living a full life.
I actually looked and couldn’t find the murder rate in the population of gun owners with basic googling but the actual number doesn’t matter when it’s being compared to 0.
According to a quick Google search, 3 in 10 American adults say that they currently own a firearm; that’s around 82,000,000 gun owners in the US. Last time I checked, there were around 45,000 annual gun deaths in the US, of which just under 2/3 were suicide. That leaves somewhere around 18,000 deaths that are homicides of some form (which also includes legal self-defense). So it’s far, far less than 1/1000 gun owners that are going to shoot someone (other than intentionally shooting themselves, and IMO that’s a different issue entirely).
But, sure, if in your opinion that only correct number of gun deaths is 0, then yes, removing guns and collectively forgetting how to make them is the only solution. Just like if your opinion is that the only correct number of traffic deaths is zero, then the only reasonable solution is the completely elimination of all means of transportation other than feet.
Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that? As for your comparison to vehicular deaths, let’s remember the context here. The question is whether or not I feel safer in a place that doesn’t allow guns or one that does. So you should really be asking if I think it’s better to walk on the sidewalk or in the road shared with cars. Of course I might still get hit by a car on the sidewalk, but where would you feel safer?
Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that?
I absolutely do disagree, yes. If my life or safety is being threatened by someone, then I absolutely have the right to use any level of force necessary to defend myself, up to and including lethal force.
BTW, the way that you state that question is a form of manipulation. It’s a common tactic used in high-pressure sales.
Ok, I don’t agree, it should be up to and including the amount of force necessary to incapacitate whoever is threatening your life. Stun gun and handcuffs yes, handgun no.
Btw the way you drew a false comparison between my argument and road safety is called false equivalence and is an informal fallacy, while we’re discussing each other’s debating techniques rather than addressing the points made.
First: Stun guns are ineffective. I’ve used one on myself; it tickles. The basic principle of a stun gun is pain compliance, and if the person you’re using it on has a high pain threshold, they’re utterly ineffective A taser has, at best, two shots. Thick clothing, bad contact, or simply missing means you’re SOL. It’s pretty easy to find video of cops trying to taze someone, and failing. Pepper spray works–depending on the brand–but it very dependent on things like wind speed and direction, and how old your canister is. …And you’re pretty likely to end up pepper spraying yourself if you don’t practice with inert canisters.
Guns just work. Period.
And no, it’s not a false equivalence. Cars have utility value, as do firearms. Cars can be used legally, and they can be used illegally, as can firearms. There are millions of cars that are used legally and safely every day, much like firearms. It’s not a precise parallel, but it’s sufficiently close for the purposes of this argument.
Guns also mostly end up harming the owner, but with a side effect of death, unlike the stun gun. Immediate Google results shows stun guns to be about 90% effective, which I’ll take over your anecdote.
It’s a false equivalence in this context which you keep ignoring. The question is about a place that explicitly doesn’t allow guns. Again, to make the equivalence work you have to compare me walking on a road that doesn’t allow cars to me walking on one that does, and obviously I feel safer on the one that doesn’t, even if someone can break the rules and bring a car.
Immediate Google results shows stun guns to be about 90% effective,
Google is 100% wrong. A Taser–not a stun gun–shoots barbed darts that are connected to the handset by thin wires. When you have good contact–that is, they aren’t stuck in clothing instead of piercing the skin, and they’re far enough apart–they’re going to create strong muscle spasms, like a whole-body TENS unit. (Which, BTW, isn’t that painful either, IMO, but you do lose a degree of voluntary movement. ) A stun gun works only when it’s on contact with bare skin, and only works through pain-compliance. E.g., it “hurts”, and the idea is that a person will want the pain to stop. Except that they don’t really hurt.
Ask any person that actually does serious self-defense training for high-risk situations, and they’re going to say the same thing; you can not rely on a stun gun. A Taser will work, but you have exactly two shots, and getting both darts to make solid contact can be very iffy. Oh, and they only work as long as you keep your finger on the trigger; as soon as you let it go, the assailant is back in business. Tasers work in law enforcement because they usually work in teams and groups rather than singly.
Fair enough, though a person with a gun is much more likely to shoot me than a person without a gun.
they’re more likely to have the probability of shooting you in an extremely bad encounter. If you have an encounter that bad with someone, you’re going to get fucked up one way or another, and it’s probably you who caused the problem, since you’d be the common denominator here. Otherwise it’s basically just up to random statistics or not as to whether you get gun violenced.
Statistically, speaking, a person with a gun is more capable of shooting you than someone without a gun. I would be willing to be the number of gun owners that have shot a person is probably less than 0.01%
and you reduce the amount of people around me carrying guns from 1000 to 10, you’ve just dramatically increased my statistical probability of living a full life.
also this isn’t accurate since it would mostly matter on who shoots you, rather than a gun owner shooting you. Most of the gun violence in the US is done via illegal or unregistered guns. I.E. not legal license carrying gun owners.
I know the rough per capita numbers per 100,000 people iirc, is about 5-30 varying per state obviously. But states like NYC and cali have some of the lowest, with random buttfuck nowhere land no gun law states having upwards of 30. To be clear, this is a 0.0003% chance at the highest level. Most of which is probably going to be avoided by simply engaging in basic self preservation behaviors. Since most gun violence isn’t just random acts of violence.
between legal gun owners, and the statistical chunk of gun violence, yes it does matter.
If you’re in a place where legal gun owners are, and where illegal gun owners are unlikely to be (or at least unlikely to cause problems in) statistically yes, you would expect that to make a difference.
Just to be clear, walking into a room that has a gun in it doesn’t magically make you more likely to get shot. Walking into a room with a person whose armed doesn’t make them more likely to shoot you or for you to get shot, it increases the possibility that you could be shot by virtue of there being a gun now, but that’s irrelevant to actually getting shot yes.
You realize we have knives in kitchens right? Does walking into a kitchen automatically increase the chances of you getting stabbed?
it’s hard to explain this, because you’re essentially operating a rokos basilisk premise here. The very concept of a gun doesn’t increase the chances of you getting shot, the gun being nearer to you than it previously was doesn’t increase that chance. The gun being next to you or on you doesn’t change this. The hands of the person it’s in may change it, but that’s still a third party variable so we can’t really account for that one here. Even if the gun is pointed at you, it doesn’t arguably increase the chances that you can get shot, it might be unloaded for all you know. If someone who is aggressing you, or who you are aggressing on is pointing a gun at you, yes that would probably drastically increase the chances of you getting shot.
If you are aggressing someone who owns a gun, or they are aggressing you, it may increase the chances of them pulling the gun on you. But that doesn’t necessarily increase the chance of you getting shot.
to be clear here, the only real situation in which you are more likely to be shot, is in which someone is pointing a gun at you, and telling you that they are going to shoot you. Every other situation is going to be several orders of magnitude less significant, and effectively irrelevant here.
Just to be clear, walking into a room that has a gun in it doesn’t magically make you more likely to get shot.
That’s nonsense, obviously there’s an increased probability with strict causation between being around guns and getting shot.
If you’re in a place where legal gun owners are, and where illegal gun owners are unlikely to be (or at least unlikely to cause problems in)
You seem to be pretending that “good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns”. I invite you to provide any source that backs this up. This is an American myth, and from outside it’s obvious that the presence of “good guys” with guns just make the criminal elements more likely to arm themselves. It also is increasingly obvious that a very large portion of the self proclaimed good guys are in fact also bad people just itching for an excuse.
i didn’t line up the specifics very well in most of those examples so i’m curious to see how.
That’s nonsense, obviously there’s an increased probability with strict causation between being around guns and getting shot.
let’s say i lock you in a room alone, in that room is a hidden compartment under the floor, and in the floor, is a gun. (may or may not be loaded, or have ammunition) i never informed you of this compartment, and that gun. It would be silly to argue that you’re more likely to be shot. The only person that could shoot you is yourself, and you would need to know about the gun first.
Obviously this is an extremely uncharitable take on this, so we’ll modify it a bit, same room, same scenario, no secret compartment, there is a table in the middle of the room, and there is a gun on it (may or may not be loaded) is simply being in that room, going to make it more likely for you to get shot?
And like you said, that’s strict causation. If we’re making the argument that being a room with a gun is more dangerous than not, being in a kitchen is more dangerous than not, even if you’re not doing anything.
You seem to be pretending that “good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns”. I invite you to provide any source that backs this up.
i’m not, you’re just making that up. Statistically, the primary causer of gun violence is criminals and people who own illegal guns (now idk if these stats are trustworthy to begin with, so i’ll give you that one) and on top of this, most gun violence is targeted, very very few cases of gun violence are just random acts of violence. The average legal gun owning individual, who conceal carries, is not going to be more likely to do any of these things.
If i wanted to say that good guys with guns were going to do something, i would’ve said that. I don’t believe in that because it’s fucking stupid, but people also seem to not be capable of understanding that simply owning a gun doesn’t mean you shoot people for fun either.
Statistically speaking, people that have conceal carry licenses are less likely to engage in criminal activity than the average person, and less likely to shoot a person in general. The people to worry about are the people that carry firearms without having a valid carry license. (This doesn’t apply in the relatively few states that don’t require permits to carry concealed firearms.) Essentially, people that obey one law–getting a permit before they carry a firearm–tend to be likely to obey most laws.
Fair enough, though a person with a gun is much more likely to shoot me than a person without a gun. Any measure to reduce the amount of people in my vicinity carrying guns has my full support. If 1/1000 (number pulled out of my ass obviously) gun owners end up shooing someone, and you reduce the amount of people around me carrying guns from 1000 to 10, you’ve just dramatically increased my statistical probability of living a full life.
I actually looked and couldn’t find the murder rate in the population of gun owners with basic googling but the actual number doesn’t matter when it’s being compared to 0.
According to a quick Google search, 3 in 10 American adults say that they currently own a firearm; that’s around 82,000,000 gun owners in the US. Last time I checked, there were around 45,000 annual gun deaths in the US, of which just under 2/3 were suicide. That leaves somewhere around 18,000 deaths that are homicides of some form (which also includes legal self-defense). So it’s far, far less than 1/1000 gun owners that are going to shoot someone (other than intentionally shooting themselves, and IMO that’s a different issue entirely).
But, sure, if in your opinion that only correct number of gun deaths is 0, then yes, removing guns and collectively forgetting how to make them is the only solution. Just like if your opinion is that the only correct number of traffic deaths is zero, then the only reasonable solution is the completely elimination of all means of transportation other than feet.
You’ve done your division twice there, it seems. The ~45000 is the number after you take away the suicides.. So pretty much 1/2000, so I guess I was pretty close.
Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that? As for your comparison to vehicular deaths, let’s remember the context here. The question is whether or not I feel safer in a place that doesn’t allow guns or one that does. So you should really be asking if I think it’s better to walk on the sidewalk or in the road shared with cars. Of course I might still get hit by a car on the sidewalk, but where would you feel safer?
I absolutely do disagree, yes. If my life or safety is being threatened by someone, then I absolutely have the right to use any level of force necessary to defend myself, up to and including lethal force.
BTW, the way that you state that question is a form of manipulation. It’s a common tactic used in high-pressure sales.
Ok, I don’t agree, it should be up to and including the amount of force necessary to incapacitate whoever is threatening your life. Stun gun and handcuffs yes, handgun no.
Btw the way you drew a false comparison between my argument and road safety is called false equivalence and is an informal fallacy, while we’re discussing each other’s debating techniques rather than addressing the points made.
First: Stun guns are ineffective. I’ve used one on myself; it tickles. The basic principle of a stun gun is pain compliance, and if the person you’re using it on has a high pain threshold, they’re utterly ineffective A taser has, at best, two shots. Thick clothing, bad contact, or simply missing means you’re SOL. It’s pretty easy to find video of cops trying to taze someone, and failing. Pepper spray works–depending on the brand–but it very dependent on things like wind speed and direction, and how old your canister is. …And you’re pretty likely to end up pepper spraying yourself if you don’t practice with inert canisters.
Guns just work. Period.
And no, it’s not a false equivalence. Cars have utility value, as do firearms. Cars can be used legally, and they can be used illegally, as can firearms. There are millions of cars that are used legally and safely every day, much like firearms. It’s not a precise parallel, but it’s sufficiently close for the purposes of this argument.
Guns also mostly end up harming the owner, but with a side effect of death, unlike the stun gun. Immediate Google results shows stun guns to be about 90% effective, which I’ll take over your anecdote.
It’s a false equivalence in this context which you keep ignoring. The question is about a place that explicitly doesn’t allow guns. Again, to make the equivalence work you have to compare me walking on a road that doesn’t allow cars to me walking on one that does, and obviously I feel safer on the one that doesn’t, even if someone can break the rules and bring a car.
Google is 100% wrong. A Taser–not a stun gun–shoots barbed darts that are connected to the handset by thin wires. When you have good contact–that is, they aren’t stuck in clothing instead of piercing the skin, and they’re far enough apart–they’re going to create strong muscle spasms, like a whole-body TENS unit. (Which, BTW, isn’t that painful either, IMO, but you do lose a degree of voluntary movement. ) A stun gun works only when it’s on contact with bare skin, and only works through pain-compliance. E.g., it “hurts”, and the idea is that a person will want the pain to stop. Except that they don’t really hurt.
This is a Taser.
This is a stun gun.
Ask any person that actually does serious self-defense training for high-risk situations, and they’re going to say the same thing; you can not rely on a stun gun. A Taser will work, but you have exactly two shots, and getting both darts to make solid contact can be very iffy. Oh, and they only work as long as you keep your finger on the trigger; as soon as you let it go, the assailant is back in business. Tasers work in law enforcement because they usually work in teams and groups rather than singly.
they’re more likely to have the probability of shooting you in an extremely bad encounter. If you have an encounter that bad with someone, you’re going to get fucked up one way or another, and it’s probably you who caused the problem, since you’d be the common denominator here. Otherwise it’s basically just up to random statistics or not as to whether you get gun violenced.
Statistically, speaking, a person with a gun is more capable of shooting you than someone without a gun. I would be willing to be the number of gun owners that have shot a person is probably less than 0.01%
also this isn’t accurate since it would mostly matter on who shoots you, rather than a gun owner shooting you. Most of the gun violence in the US is done via illegal or unregistered guns. I.E. not legal license carrying gun owners.
I know the rough per capita numbers per 100,000 people iirc, is about 5-30 varying per state obviously. But states like NYC and cali have some of the lowest, with random buttfuck nowhere land no gun law states having upwards of 30. To be clear, this is a 0.0003% chance at the highest level. Most of which is probably going to be avoided by simply engaging in basic self preservation behaviors. Since most gun violence isn’t just random acts of violence.
Look are you really trying to argue that the amount of people with guns in my vicinity is irrelevant to my chances of getting shot?
between legal gun owners, and the statistical chunk of gun violence, yes it does matter.
If you’re in a place where legal gun owners are, and where illegal gun owners are unlikely to be (or at least unlikely to cause problems in) statistically yes, you would expect that to make a difference.
Just to be clear, walking into a room that has a gun in it doesn’t magically make you more likely to get shot. Walking into a room with a person whose armed doesn’t make them more likely to shoot you or for you to get shot, it increases the possibility that you could be shot by virtue of there being a gun now, but that’s irrelevant to actually getting shot yes.
You realize we have knives in kitchens right? Does walking into a kitchen automatically increase the chances of you getting stabbed?
it’s hard to explain this, because you’re essentially operating a rokos basilisk premise here. The very concept of a gun doesn’t increase the chances of you getting shot, the gun being nearer to you than it previously was doesn’t increase that chance. The gun being next to you or on you doesn’t change this. The hands of the person it’s in may change it, but that’s still a third party variable so we can’t really account for that one here. Even if the gun is pointed at you, it doesn’t arguably increase the chances that you can get shot, it might be unloaded for all you know. If someone who is aggressing you, or who you are aggressing on is pointing a gun at you, yes that would probably drastically increase the chances of you getting shot.
If you are aggressing someone who owns a gun, or they are aggressing you, it may increase the chances of them pulling the gun on you. But that doesn’t necessarily increase the chance of you getting shot.
to be clear here, the only real situation in which you are more likely to be shot, is in which someone is pointing a gun at you, and telling you that they are going to shoot you. Every other situation is going to be several orders of magnitude less significant, and effectively irrelevant here.
None of what you just said is true. Starting here
That’s nonsense, obviously there’s an increased probability with strict causation between being around guns and getting shot.
You seem to be pretending that “good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns”. I invite you to provide any source that backs this up. This is an American myth, and from outside it’s obvious that the presence of “good guys” with guns just make the criminal elements more likely to arm themselves. It also is increasingly obvious that a very large portion of the self proclaimed good guys are in fact also bad people just itching for an excuse.
i didn’t line up the specifics very well in most of those examples so i’m curious to see how.
let’s say i lock you in a room alone, in that room is a hidden compartment under the floor, and in the floor, is a gun. (may or may not be loaded, or have ammunition) i never informed you of this compartment, and that gun. It would be silly to argue that you’re more likely to be shot. The only person that could shoot you is yourself, and you would need to know about the gun first.
Obviously this is an extremely uncharitable take on this, so we’ll modify it a bit, same room, same scenario, no secret compartment, there is a table in the middle of the room, and there is a gun on it (may or may not be loaded) is simply being in that room, going to make it more likely for you to get shot?
And like you said, that’s strict causation. If we’re making the argument that being a room with a gun is more dangerous than not, being in a kitchen is more dangerous than not, even if you’re not doing anything.
i’m not, you’re just making that up. Statistically, the primary causer of gun violence is criminals and people who own illegal guns (now idk if these stats are trustworthy to begin with, so i’ll give you that one) and on top of this, most gun violence is targeted, very very few cases of gun violence are just random acts of violence. The average legal gun owning individual, who conceal carries, is not going to be more likely to do any of these things.
If i wanted to say that good guys with guns were going to do something, i would’ve said that. I don’t believe in that because it’s fucking stupid, but people also seem to not be capable of understanding that simply owning a gun doesn’t mean you shoot people for fun either.