Police shootings at Dallas BLM protest.

[zapatos]

Zapatos

 

You have a gun because everybody else does. This fact of firearms being highly prevalent increases your risk of harm by a firearm, therefore you need to own one. If you remove/reduce the prevalence you reduce or negate the need to own one.

That is certainly one of the factors, yes. But I'd likely have one even if they were relatively rare as its usefulness remains even if others do not have guns.

[DrmDoc]

Neither. I felt confident and secure prior to owning a shotgun, and I feel confident and secure now. I just feel like I'm prepared for a wider range of situations now.

 

Next time I go hiking I may bring a LifeStraw with me. Then I'll feel like I'm prepared for a wider range of situations.

 

Do you carry jumper cables in your car? Would you be fearful without them? Do you feel more prepared with them?

This is similar to how I feel about my shotgun.

If having jumper cables is a matter of "personal safety" as you previously commented relative to your gun ownership, then they are indeed a product of fear. As I commented, being prepared is an effort to secure oneself against a fear of vulnerability or weakness during some future moment of urgency or need. An effort to secure one's "personal safety" regards a fear of vulnerability that your gun ownership addresses. Can you answer honestly that you would feel equally confidence and secure, as you do now, without your shotgun?

Edited July 25, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

Zapatos

 

You have a gun because everybody else does. This fact of firearms being highly prevalent increases your risk of harm by a firearm, therefore you need to own one. If you remove/reduce the prevalence you reduce or negate the need to own one.

This logic gets applied to vehicles too. A lot of people drive gaint SUVs and trucks and as a result many other people don't feel safe driving smaller vehicle which perpetuates more people by large SUVs and truck. Meanwhile larger heavier vehicles are actually more difficult to drive and cause more damage when involved in accidents.

[StringJunky]

That is certainly one of the factors, yes. But I'd likely have one even if they were relatively rare as its usefulness remains even if others do not have guns.

If you like guns for reasons other then self-defence that's ok but most people seem to own one because they think they need one. The very fears that propagate their prevalence, in turn, causes the dangers of being shot to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Phi for All]

Neither. I felt confident and secure prior to owning a shotgun, and I feel confident and secure now. I just feel like I'm prepared for a wider range of situations now.

 

Next time I go hiking I may bring a LifeStraw with me. Then I'll feel like I'm prepared for a wider range of situations.

 

Do you carry jumper cables in your car? Would you be fearful without them? Do you feel more prepared with them?

This is similar to how I feel about my shotgun.

 

This is a rational stance, I think, until you make the decision to select your shotgun due to the circumstances you find yourself in. Guns aren't like other hand tools, they require the focus of much more dangerous tools, like you were using a table saw or a lathe. You train to keep it pointed in a certain way, with the safety a certain way, and maintain extra vigilance while it's drawn. And what are you being vigilant for? Unless it's a wild animal attack, you're watching for other guns. I think this focus can make it harder for the person who has chosen a gun as the right tool for a particular situation to think of using anything else. Does that make sense?

 

I don't have evidence to back this up, but I've always thought someone who was defending themselves with a knife is just as likely to lash out with feet and their off-hand as they are to use the cutting/stabbing power of the knife. But someone with a gun in their hand is much more focused on using it to the exclusion of anything else, I think, because it is one of the most powerful tools there are, and it's supposed to command instant obediance. Couple that trained mentality with a victim who 1) knows they've done nothing to deserve being shot, and 2) assume the policeman knows they're unarmed. When the officer draws his gun in this situation, he knows none of that, he stays out of the reach of fists or knives, and focuses on being the first to fire if the suspect suddenly pulls a gun.

 

I've always stood by the guns-are-tools stance, but I think for many, guns are prone to induce tunnel vision. They're big hammers that make everything look like a nail.

[StringJunky]

They're big hammers that make everything look like a nail.

It's cognitively lazy, in a way, as it's far easier to twitch your forefinger than it is to negotiate.

[Raider5678]

I know a friend who got pulled over for a speeding ticket, and the officer wanted to see her licence and registration. She told the officer she had a gun in the glove apartment and the licence and registration was in there too. The officer said ok, told her to step out of the car, and got the licence and registration himself with her permission. Problem solved.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Raider5678

[zapatos]

If having jumper cables is a matter of "personal safety" as you previously commented relative to your gun ownership, then they are indeed a product of fear. As I commented, being prepared is an effort to secure oneself against a fear of vulnerability or weakness during some future moment of urgency or need. An effort to secure one's "personal safety" regards a fear of vulnerability that your gun ownership addresses. Can you answer honestly that you would feel equally confidence and secure, as you do now, without your shotgun?

Yes. At least in any sense that could be reasonably measured. I've never picked up a gun because I was defending myself. I've never even been in a serious enough situation that I wished for a gun at that moment.

I also keep extra food and water in my house in case of emergency. Been doing that for decades. The chances of me needing that food and water is IMO really slim, and I'd feel just fine if it wasn't there, because I'm unlikely to be cut off from a food supply for any period of time.

But... It costs me very little to have extra food and water in the house, and it costs me very little to have a shotgun in the house, and if the need comes up I am set. So I do it.

 

If you like guns for reasons other then self-defence that's ok but most people seem to own one because they think they need one. The very fears that propagate their prevalence, in turn, causes the dangers of being shot to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I do have other interests for my guns (skeet shooting for example), but let's focus on self defense. I have the gun for self defense, but I don't need the gun for self defense. I'm unlikely to ever use it, and I also have baseball bats and table lamps I can use to defend myself. But under some circumstances, the shotgun would serve me better. So I have it.

 

This is a rational stance, I think, until you make the decision to select your shotgun due to the circumstances you find yourself in.

 

Guns aren't like other hand tools, they require the focus of much more dangerous tools, like you were using a table saw or a lathe. You train to keep it pointed in a certain way, with the safety a certain way, and maintain extra vigilance while it's drawn. And what are you being vigilant for? Unless it's a wild animal attack, you're watching for other guns. I think this focus can make it harder for the person who has chosen a gun as the right tool for a particular situation to think of using anything else. Does that make sense?

Yes, but I don't see why it becomes an irrational choice just because it is a more dangerous tool. I regularly use my table saw instead of a safer tool because it is the better choice.

 

I don't have evidence to back this up, but I've always thought someone who was defending themselves with a knife is just as likely to lash out with feet and their off-hand as they are to use the cutting/stabbing power of the knife. But someone with a gun in their hand is much more focused on using it to the exclusion of anything else, I think, because it is one of the most powerful tools there are, and it's supposed to command instant obediance. Couple that trained mentality with a victim who 1) knows they've done nothing to deserve being shot, and 2) assume the policeman knows they're unarmed. When the officer draws his gun in this situation, he knows none of that, he stays out of the reach of fists or knives, and focuses on being the first to fire if the suspect suddenly pulls a gun.

 

I've always stood by the guns-are-tools stance, but I think for many, guns are prone to induce tunnel vision. They're big hammers that make everything look like a nail.

Basically you are saying there is more risk using a gun than some other choices. I agree. But that is true with everything in life.

I would have been safer staying at home than taking a vacation in Rome, but I went to Rome last year anyway. Guns are a risk, and like anything else risky, you should mitigate and be prepared for the possible consequences.

[Phi for All]

Yes, but I don't see why it becomes an irrational choice just because it is a more dangerous tool. I regularly use my table saw instead of a safer tool because it is the better choice.

 

There's no urgency in your decision to use your table saw. You make that decision based on criteria that aren't normally life-threatening. I think choosing the gun can lead to irrational decisions simply because it locks a lot of people into a very limited set of choices.

 

Basically you are saying there is more risk using a gun than some other choices. I agree. But that is true with everything in life.

I would have been safer staying at home than taking a vacation in Rome, but I went to Rome last year anyway. Guns are a risk, and like anything else risky, you should mitigate and be prepared for the possible consequences.

No, it's not just that guns are a more dangerous tool. That's a given.

 

I'm saying that AS A TOOL, choosing a gun instead of doing anything else in a particular situation is NOT equivalent to choosing your table saw over your hand saw. I think many people view the gun as the ultimate power threat, and once you choose it as the right tool for the job, you've mentally removed a lot of other viable options.

 

At that point, you're demanding compliance, you're making sure your target doesn't move any closer to negate your distance advantage, you're trying to stay aware of what's behind and to the sides of you, and you're ready to pull your own trigger if you see sudden movement signalling a charge or drawing a hidden gun.

 

If you had a lesser tool like a knife or a bat, you'd be more prone to looking at an array of options. With the gun, if you don't get instant compliance, your choices are narrowed down to 1) run, 2) let them get close enough to club them with the gun, 3) fire a warning shot, 4) shoot to wound, or 5) shoot to kill. I think a person with a gun is not like a normal tool-wielder, that's all I'm saying. I've always thought of guns as tools, but now I think that's not exactly true.

[StringJunky]

I do have other interests for my guns (skeet shooting for example), but let's focus on self defense. I have the gun for self defense, but I don't need the gun for self defense. I'm unlikely to ever use it, and I also have baseball bats and table lamps I can use to defend myself. But under some circumstances, the shotgun would serve me better. So I have it.

Whichever way you look at it, you have a raised baseline of fear/caution not found in a typical UK resident. I have no premeditated means of self-defence available in my home; I worry about it as much as I worry about a meteorite crashing into it. Due to the general scarcity of firearms, the odds of being killed by an intruder because he doesn't need one to get what he wants or can't get one are considerably reduced

[DrmDoc]

Yes. At least in any sense that could be reasonably measured. I've never picked up a gun because I was defending myself. I've never even been in a serious enough situation that I wished for a gun at that moment.

Isn't that answer a bit disingenuous? If, as you have commented, "personal safety" is a prime factor for your ownership, then the measure should reasonably suggest the opposite of your answer here. Your answer here suggests that you, perhaps, wouldn't protest our government's removal of your right to keep your shotgun, which is something I think highly unlikely given your current responses.

[iNow]

If guns were unavailable everywhere, this becomes an easier conversation.

If guns are available anywhere, then the choice of ownership resides with each individual.

Each individual will set their own threshold criteria for yes/no.

The rest is largely moot, IMO. What's not moot is how we intelligently regulate and maximize safety and training once we accept the starting premise that guns are available.

[Delta1212]

I know a friend who got pulled over for a speeding ticket, and the officer wanted to see her licence and registration. She told the officer she had a gun in the glove apartment and the licence and registration was in there too. The officer said ok, told her to step out of the car, and got the licence and registration himself with her permission. Problem solved.

No one has claimed that every encounter with police turns deadly. The problem is that far more encounters with police turn deadly than should be the case.

 

That's not an especially high number on a per encounter basis. Most people will be just fine in any given encounter. Most officers are probably unlikely to shoot anyone.

 

But just because everything went well from someone who did everything correctly does not mean that it goes well for everyone who does everything correctly. A single instance without a problem is not evidence that there is never a problem. It is simply evidence that there isn't a problem every single time.

 

Which I think any reasonable person will admit.

 

The problem is not that police shoot every person they encounter with a gun, or every black person they come across or anything like that. The problem is that those deadly encounters happen far, far too often. Either there are a lot of unjustified shootings taking place, or something about the way our society conducts its police work places officers in situations that we view as requiring the use of a firearm far too frequently.

 

Just because a shooting can be justified does not mean that there wasn't a better course of action available leading up to that shooting that could have avoided turning a situation into a deadly encounter. And just because justified shootings happen does not mean that all shootings are justified.

 

The fact that other countries manage to police themselves without killing their own citizens at the rate we do suggests that there is a serious problem somewhere that needs to be addressed.

[zapatos]

Isn't that answer a bit disingenuous? If, as you have commented, "personal safety" is a prime factor for your ownership, then the measure should reasonably suggest the opposite of your answer here. Your answer here suggests that you, perhaps, wouldn't protest our government's removal of your right to keep your shotgun, which is something I think highly unlikely given your current responses.

Ah, but therein lies the risk of making assumptions.

 

I'm all for gun control. I'd give up all my guns if that's what it took, although I'd prefer rules that allowed me to keep hunting and sport weapons.

Just because something is a 'prime factor' in a decision doesn't mean it is necessarily all that important. The prime factor is me choosing my petrol station over another is the cute girl working at the counter. But I wouldn't be bothered in the least if I had to buy my petrol elsewhere.

 

There's no urgency in your decision to use your table saw. You make that decision based on criteria that aren't normally life-threatening. I think choosing the gun can lead to irrational decisions simply because it locks a lot of people into a very limited set of choices.

 

No, it's not just that guns are a more dangerous tool. That's a given.

 

I'm saying that AS A TOOL, choosing a gun instead of doing anything else in a particular situation is NOT equivalent to choosing your table saw over your hand saw. I think many people view the gun as the ultimate power threat, and once you choose it as the right tool for the job, you've mentally removed a lot of other viable options.

 

At that point, you're demanding compliance, you're making sure your target doesn't move any closer to negate your distance advantage, you're trying to stay aware of what's behind and to the sides of you, and you're ready to pull your own trigger if you see sudden movement signalling a charge or drawing a hidden gun.

 

If you had a lesser tool like a knife or a bat, you'd be more prone to looking at an array of options. With the gun, if you don't get instant compliance, your choices are narrowed down to 1) run, 2) let them get close enough to club them with the gun, 3) fire a warning shot, 4) shoot to wound, or 5) shoot to kill. I think a person with a gun is not like a normal tool-wielder, that's all I'm saying. I've always thought of guns as tools, but now I think that's not exactly true.

I feel like we are pretty much in agreement. I might say it differently but I don't disagree with you.

Whichever way you look at it, you have a raised baseline of fear/caution not found in a typical UK resident.

Caution certainly. As I said though, I'm not afraid.

 

I have no premeditated means of self-defence available in my home; I worry about it as much as I worry about a meteorite crashing into it.

That's about how much I worry about it. Or maybe as much as I worry about a major earthquake in the Midwestern United States.

 

Due to the general scarcity of firearms, the odds of being killed by an intruder because he doesn't need one to get what he wants or can't get one are considerably reduced

Agreed. I'm somewhat more at risk than you and take somewhat more precautions.

[dimreepr]

Therein lies the rub, why would the average, decent, gun owner unilaterally give up his/her weapon, when such an action is lost in the noise?

Edited July 25, 2016 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

Expecting anyone to given up their firearms is not a good place to start. Tying the gun discussion back to BLM and police violence no meaningful voices are calling for police officers to no have guns. BLM is not calling for any specific gun measures. Rather the debate if about the frivilous way formalities are used to justify killing people. A police officer shouts orders to a citizen who is unarmed and innocent of a crime and any small disobedience even if done out of confusion becomes justification for an office to use deadly force. That is the problem. Such formalities have been extend include civilian on civilian cases. George Zimmerman was armed, took notice of an unarmed Trayvon Martin, got out of his vehicle armed with the intention to confront, then after killing Trayvon the formality of not know for sure who instigated their dispute justified Zimmerman killing Trayvon. A teenage boy walking around on the phone in his own nieghborhood. It was easier for a jury to accept that Trayvon Martin may have spontaneously decided to try and kill Zimmerman for no known reason than to acknowledge that it is more logical that exiting a vehicle armed with the intention to confront a stranger is a reckless and dangerous action which resulted in Trayvon Martins death.

 

We don't need to start are people giving up guns. That may be too many steps at once. A good start is from us to get to a place where we stop defending those who use guns against unarmed people with petty debates about self defense.

[dimreepr]

Expecting anyone to given up their firearms is not a good place to start.

 

 

That was my point.

[DrmDoc]

 

Ah, but therein lies the risk of making assumptions.

 

I'm all for gun control. I'd give up all my guns if that's what it took, although I'd prefer rules that allowed me to keep hunting and sport weapons.

Just because something is a 'prime factor' in a decision doesn't mean it is necessarily all that important. The prime factor is me choosing my petrol station over another is the cute girl working at the counter. But I wouldn't be bothered in the least if I had to buy my petrol elsewhere.

You certainly have a way of drawing comparisons between clearly disproportionate circumstances. We both know that a pursuit for "personal safety" isn't comparable to a pursuit inspired by a "cute girl working at the counter"--that is unless your personal safety is truly as unimportant to you as lusting after a pretty girl. Perhaps I misunderstood what you have clearly expressed; for you, personal safety isn't "necessarily all that important" and is as concerning to you as how you might chose your petrol station or whether your pantry is sufficiently stock with emergency supplies. It just seems to me that if personal safety was truly your basis for gun ownership as you said, you would most certainly feel a little less personally safe without it.

Edited July 25, 2016 by DrmDoc

[dimreepr]

You certainly have a way of drawing comparisons between clearly disproportionate circumstances. We both know that a pursuit for "personal safety" isn't comparable to a pursuit inspired by a "cute girl working at the counter"--that is unless your personal safety is truly as unimportant to you as lusting after a pretty girl. Perhaps I misunderstood

 

 

It would certainly seem so.

[Moontanman]

Gun control is an issue but so is personal safety. Does anyone here really think the police are going to protect you?

[dimreepr]

Does anyone here really think the police are going to protect you?

 

 

I'd hope so...

[Moontanman]

 

 

I'd hope so...

 

 

The police investigate crimes after the fact...

[dimreepr]

 

 

The police investigate crimes after the fact...

 

 

So. no protection? Shit, so 'protect and serve' has no meaning?

Edited July 25, 2016 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

 

 

So. no protection? Shit, so protect and serve has no meaning?

 

 

It's impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime before it happens. They cannot know until they are called... This is what the police have told me, friends of mine who were law enforcement..

Edited July 25, 2016 by Moontanman

[dimreepr]

 

 

It's impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime before it happens. They cannot know until they are called... This is what the police have told me, friends of mine who were law enforcement..

 

 

Then what else do they pretend to stand for?