Guns, Guns Guns

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/29/concealed-carrier-prevents-mass-shooting-at-sc-nightclub/

Proof in the pudding. Saved lives, he did.

PeterZ wrote:http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/29/concealed-carrier-prevents-mass-shooting-at-sc-nightclub/

US gun rights people: "Look, person with gun stopped more people from getting shot. Yay!"

Everyone else: "Look, YET MORE PEOPLE getting shot in the US. And they're celebrating it for some reason. "

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/29/concealed-carrier-prevents-mass-shooting-at-sc-nightclub/

US gun rights people: "Look, person with gun stopped more people from getting shot. Yay!"

Everyone else: "Look, YET MORE PEOPLE getting shot in the US. And they're celebrating it for some reason. "

Do I sound like I was celebrating? The article did not read like a celebration. Am I to conclude that anyone who disagrees with you on this topic should be considered open for disparagement?

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:US gun rights people: "Look, person with gun stopped more people from getting shot. Yay!"

Everyone else: "Look, YET MORE PEOPLE getting shot in the US. And they're celebrating it for some reason. "

Do I sound like I was celebrating?

Generally "saved lives, he did" would be considered a celebratory statement. Did you mean it mournfully? As in "it's such a tragedy this person saved lives"?

PeterZ wrote:http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/29/concealed-carrier-prevents-mass-shooting-at-sc-nightclub/

Proof in the pudding. Saved lives, he did.

I wish there was more detail on the incident in the article because there's no indication of whether the "proof" is the result of luck or skill. I think at least some of it is the mention of a leg shot - did the intervener target the leg or was he aiming for center of mass and missing? How many shots were returned? And so on.

I'm not saying it didn't turn out for the better in this case. But evidence pointing to skill and restraint being a very prevalent norm would be more reassuring. Also, I'd be much happier if the loser who started it had never been allowed/able to get his hands on a gun in the first place, removing the need for intervention, but you can't have everything.

gcomeau wrote:US gun rights people: "Look, person with gun stopped more people from getting shot. Yay!"

Everyone else: "Look, YET MORE PEOPLE getting shot in the US. And they're celebrating it for some reason. "


Generally "saved lives, he did" would be considered a celebratory statement. Did you mean it mournfully? As in "it's such a tragedy this person saved lives"?

More lives could have been lost but were not. That is a sober reflection of facts. Hardly a celebration.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:US gun rights people: "Look, person with gun stopped more people from getting shot. Yay!"

Everyone else: "Look, YET MORE PEOPLE getting shot in the US. And they're celebrating it for some reason. "


Generally "saved lives, he did" would be considered a celebratory statement. Did you mean it mournfully? As in "it's such a tragedy this person saved lives"?

More lives could have been lost but were not. That is a sober reflection of facts. Hardly a celebration.

So the pudding-esque proof you were referring to with that article post was "hey here's proof we have a gun problem and 5 people got shot" and NOT "hey here's proof our gun laws are ok because look this concealed carry person shot a bad guy after he *only* shot 4 other people?"

If so, hey great... in my experience that is not why such articles are generally posted however. Particularly from that source which I am VERY certain was not making that latter point when they published it.

Arguments long and loud about all the deadly firepower in the hands of private US citizens regularly engage liberals and conservatives. Far less notice has been paid to all the deadly firepower in the hands of federal bureaucrats. "The government itself has become a gun show that never adjourns," remarks former US senator Tom Coburn. Dozens of federal agencies — entities that will never be called on to fight foreign enemies — now pack heat at unprecedented levels. Perhaps that, too, is something Americans should be arguing about.

Why ???

gcomeau wrote:
So the pudding-esque proof you were referring to with that article post was "hey here's proof we have a gun problem and 5 people got shot" and NOT "hey here's proof our gun laws are ok because look this concealed carry person shot a bad guy after he *only* shot 4 other people?"

If so, hey great... in my experience that is not why such articles are generally posted however. Particularly from that source which I am VERY certain was not making that latter point when they published it.

Guns are inanimate. They cannot act. They do not choose the actions, the User does. Its already a crime to use any weapon to assault someone, let alone murderer someone. Banning guns does not prevent assault. It reduces the efficacy of the tools available to resist assault. It reduces the weapons available to commit assaults as well. However, since the one assaulting chooses to assault, he/she might be deterred if the target is in possible possession of a gun.

Evidence suggests this is the case. Not only that but we retain the right and responsibility to protect ourselves as best we may here in the US. Those who choose to abstain from owning guns are free to do so. Allow me to exercise my rights responsibly and go after those who do not.

So I'm assuming from your entire response here that that WAS a celebratory "yay a good guy with a gun saved lives" then?

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
So the pudding-esque proof you were referring to with that article post was "hey here's proof we have a gun problem and 5 people got shot" and NOT "hey here's proof our gun laws are ok because look this concealed carry person shot a bad guy after he *only* shot 4 other people?"

If so, hey great... in my experience that is not why such articles are generally posted however. Particularly from that source which I am VERY certain was not making that latter point when they published it.

Guns are inanimate. They cannot act.

Nobody in the history of the gun debate has EVER argued guns are running around on their own independently shooting people of their own volition so why is it that people are obsessively compelled to point this out again and again and again and again as if it has any kind of relevance?

They do not choose the actions, the User does. Its already a crime to use any weapon to assault someone, let alone murderer someone. Banning guns does not prevent assault.

And why is it that every time someone mentions sensible gun regulations we have to jump right to "banning"? All those other developed countries with FAR lower gun crime rates than the US? Most of them don't ban guns. They do however manage to have laws that treat them like the very dangerous weapons they are rather than everyone's favorite bang bang toy that you better not try to put too many restrictions on or the kids will throw a screaming tantrum.

It reduces the efficacy of the tools available to resist assault.

And to commit assault. The difference being the person committing the assault is always going to be the one who knows it's coming. They are going to be the one who know to have a gun at hand. They are going to be the one to pick the time and place. They are going to be the one to draw and shoot first.

So when guns are far too easily available, the assaulter, not the assaultee, gains much more of an advantage. See: the constant deluge of shootings in the US which all those guns floating around sure as hell aren't preventing.

It reduces the weapons available to commit assaults as well. However, since the one assaulting chooses to assault, he/she might be deterred if the target is in possible possession of a gun. Evidence suggests this is the case.

It most certainly does not.