sturg33
I
Was the question not relevant? Why didn't any of them provide an answer?
How would you answer? If someone is holding a gun at you and intends to fire, would you prefer to have a gun on you or not?
No discussion on the theater shooting?
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
Was the question not relevant? Why didn't any of them provide an answer?
How would you answer? If someone is holding a gun at you and intends to fire, would you prefer to have a gun on you or not?
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
You took a more complex situation and stripped it down to a single, simplistic situation that doesn't really apply. That's why no one answered your silly question.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Well, with such a narrow, circumstance-blind context, it may appear "very sound logic"; but the bare-knuckler, in view of actual circumstance, is—while less likely to disable or eliminate the maniac threat—also a lot less likely to cause additional, if accidental, harm and death. This is likewise sound logic—even if you think it isn't a necessary and foregone conclusion that collateral damage to innocents would have occurred.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Yes: it is an irrelevant question. It masquerades as simple, ho-hum "got ya there" wisdom in an attempt to distract from and obscure the broader complexities that you (I hope) know exist in this discussion. It's textbook reductio ad ridiculum, and I will repeat: your question was not relevant.
sturg33
I
It's not a single, simplistic, situation that doesn't apply. It happened to my own dad in Baltimore right in front of my brother. My dad simply showed that he had a gun and the mugger retreated into the dark.
You can ignore the question all you want. You ignore it because the answer is obvious but it would dispute your liberal la-la land ideology. So you ignore it and insult me. Good for you. But if in that situation, you prefer to be unarmed, then you're a ****ing idiot.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Your single anecdote does not equate to the overwhelming empirical boom, mother-****ers that you think it does. It's just as possible the sight of a weapon could have caused the mugger to, ahem, jump the gun on brandishing his own.
But it's not fallacious because "It could never happen—eeehhhhrrrmrrrrghrrrdd wait it did!"; it's fallacious because it ignores—willfully, I'm going to be kind enough to assume—the broader issue of gun-violence in the US to score a mean and petty little point regarding the impulse to self-preservation in a very specific, narrowly-defined moment of danger that by no means ramifies across, or redresses in a meaningful way, the substance of the actual conversation.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Well, to be fair—as you can see above—you asked a nice, reductive, hyperbolic statement and then pretended to be downright shocked—shocked, I say—when it wasn't taken seriously.
But I'll answer the question in the same spirit you "asked" it: I'd prefer not to have have someone pointing a gun at me with the intention to fire (or otherwise, for that matter).
So at absolute best, the bare-knuckler equals out with the maniac, because there's the existence of this fear of the armed defender potentially shooting an innocent?
I take still take the armed defender, collateral and all, because there's the chance (which is not as infinitesimal as you and others have tried to construe it) that he takes out the shooter and protects many, if not all of the victims. Again, considering all the circumstances which would legally allow a concealed weapon into a movie theater (excepting an outlaw felon, which is outside of my control) we're looking at the armed defender having a much higher degree of skill with his firearm.
sturg33
I
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Well, (a) I personally never said nor construed the likelihood that the gun-hero "takes out the shooter" was infinitesimal in this highly speculative thought-experiment; instead I simply (b) don't think the chance, whatever its percentage-likelihood, is enough to not only discourage any consideration, discussion, or implementation of further gun-control measures but to moreover justify encouraging greater gun ownership as a response to fears of maniac murder-sprees and vigilante wannabees.
Not to get all sturg-style anecdotal, but I've known way too many foolhardy, rash-acting totally legal gun-owners in my limited lifetime to allow me to think that Maybe the Aurora dude might have been stopped sooner (with no accidental injuries/fatalities from stopping him)! is satisfactory justification for More people need to be packing! If anything, gun laws are too constrictive! But, hey—I was born and raised in Florida, so maybe that's coloring my data-set.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
You're right: I missed that first volley, which was in fact technically phrased as a question. I've emended my post accordingly.
I did, coincidentally, respond to the question in question.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Guys... the answer is yes... I would like to have a gun if someone is about to shoot my ass. It shouldn't be that hard to answer sturg's question. You would be a moron not to want a gun. Just answer his question and move on.
It doesn't mean that a society where most people carry guns is better than what we have now. Because certainly it increases the risk of random arguments turning into shootouts.
It doesn't mean that a society where most people carry guns is better than what we have now. Because certainly it increases the risk of random arguments turning into shootouts.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
And it could just as easily not make a difference. I've overstated my point in saying "If everyone had a gun," but if there's an element of surprise, how many people are going to have to be carrying--and trained--for the fact that there are guns "against" the perpetrator is going to matter?
Hawk, I'm not buying the fact that people who carry are necessarily "trained." They know how to handle a firearm. They have to pass a test to show they are aware of the laws pertaining to firearms. But is that training to defuse a dangerous situation? The training to carry is really a low bar and I don't think it's relevant here.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
That's an obtuse way of looking at that
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
If sturg had the ability or desire to read through the lines, he'd see that his question has essentially been answered. What I'm trying to explain, along with jpx, is that simple example he poses is completely devoid of context, while the issue we're discussing isn't, so what's the point in the question? It's useless, and while he feels he proves a point by him asking and us answering, he truly does not. Instead of addressing jpx's POINTS (not useless questions), he all he says is "answer the question!"
A mass shooting at a gun show and a mass shooting in a movie theater are not the same things. I don't know, AGAIN, exactly how that comparison or suggestion is useful. It taking one circumstance and comparing it to a completely different circumstance. It seems like simple-mindedness.
A mass shooting at a gun show and a mass shooting in a movie theater are not the same things. I don't know, AGAIN, exactly how that comparison or suggestion is useful. It taking one circumstance and comparing it to a completely different circumstance. It seems like simple-mindedness.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
His entire premise is purposefully obtuse.
sturg33
I
Why do you think gun violence is highest in cities that have banned guns?
Debatable.
No evidence to support that. I can only imagine more guns on the street would lead to more shootouts, not people minding their own business.
More shootouts means more murders and attempted murder, so I don't think that would deter crime.
You underestimate the rage of the human brain and the self-defense adrenaline mechanisms it possesses.