CitiBank to Dictate to Merchants the Age at Which Customers Can Buy Guns

[Timsup2nothin]

The fatal accident rate per gun owner is actually extremely low. Non-fatal incidents are a lot more frequent but still relatively rare compared to other stuff people do like sports, etc.

And yet still not nearly as low as the "gun in the house saves lives" ratio...which is the foundation of the argument for guns to begin with.

 

[Commodore]

Very much so

Agreed. Although where you and I are going to disagree is that I'm swinging around to the thinking that only law enforcement should be disarmed, not the general public. My guess is the police would be a lot more polite when they are facing a suspect carrying an AR-15 and all they have to defend themselves is maybe some pepper spray.

And they are gonna come prepared, and they are gonna get you.

You are making the same ridiculous argument about the ability of criminals that extremely pro-police people make about the police. You are attributing almost super-human qualities to them in order to make your point seem more valid. The fact is though, defensive gun use is estimated (depending on the source) to deter between 500,000 and 3 million criminals every year. And defensive gun use isn't just defined as actually firing the gun either. If just telling or showing the would-be criminal that you have a gun deters them, that is also considered "defensive gun use".

 

[Bugfatty300]

And yet still not nearly as low as the "gun in the house saves lives" ratio...which is the foundation of the argument for guns to begin with.

I agree that there isn't evidence that keeping a gun makes you safer or conversely unsafer, so I tend to give the benefit of the doubt and my personal choice is to own and keep guns. I don't consider either to be debate winning.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are making the same ridiculous argument about the ability of criminals that extremely pro-police people make about the police. You are attributing almost super-human qualities to them in order to make your point seem more valid. The fact is though, defensive gun use is estimated (depending on the source) to deter between 500,000 and 3 million criminals every year. And defensive gun use isn't just defined as actually firing the gun either. If just telling or showing the would-be criminal that you have a gun deters them, that is also considered "defensive gun use".

This was the response to "the gun is the last resort for criminals who have already defeated every other deterrent." The superior nature of the criminal in question was your stipulation, not mine. Every criminal I know would have taken one look at the dog, or the over engineered locks, or the perimeter surveillance, and moved right along. The only criminal that is going to take on all that is one that is motivated by something very specific in that particular house. That's not my fault, you demanded it.

As to your "some people estimate and I really like these numbers so let's go with them" statistics...I thought I already addressed that, but now that I think about it that might have been in a PM. Anyway...

Sure. The gun 'deterrent' turns a petty incident into a life or death confrontation. Happy home owning gun owner gets to get away with killing when he guns down some poor sap that thought he was burglarizing an unoccupied house. Buy that man a cake! Guy who is "confronted" by a "dangerous panhandler" gets to flash his piece and send 'em scurrying like a rat. OH BOY!!!! What a story for the water cooler crew!!!

But the burglars figure out "never assume the house is empty, bring a gun and be ready to shoot." The panhandlers sometimes panic when confronted by a "bad ass" with a gun in their belt, make a grab for it and blow the bad ass's genitals into their socks. The world is not made a better place by these "defensive gun uses." It's just not.

 

[Zelig]

The fact is though, defensive gun use is estimated (depending on the source) to deter between 500,000 and 3 million criminals every year.

I don't know anything about the subject, but that seems about as accurate as copyright holders' estimates of losses due to piracy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I agree that there isn't evidence that keeping a gun makes you safer or conversely unsafer, so I tend to give the benefit of the doubt and my personal choice is to own and keep guns. I don't consider either to be debate winning.

Thing is that "own and keep guns" is not nearly as much of a problem when you remove the false premise of security. Tell a guy "man, you've got kids running through your house like a stampede, you gotta keep those things in a proper safe" and be met with "but I gotta have 'em ready or what good are they when the time o' need comes?" Tell a guy "look, when two people bang their cars together in a parking lot tempers get really short, that's a really bad time to introduce a gun to the mix" and be met with "but if it's not loaded in the console how will it save me from a carjacker?" If you take the fantasy of personal protection, or as Berzerker puts it 'equalization for the weak' out of it maybe you can talk sense to these people and them wanting to own and keep guns isn't such a problem.

 

[Zelig]

I don't know anything about the subject, but that seems about as accurate as copyright holders' estimates of losses due to piracy.

Although, I do know that anyone who either supports or opposes guns on moral or legal grounds, on top of factual ones, is too biased to be trusted on the subject.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't know anything about the subject, but that seems about as accurate as copyright holders' estimates of losses due to piracy.

LOL...as opposed to the estimates presented by developers of digital rights management systems, who estimate it several orders of magnitude higher.

 

[Berzerker]

the navy taught me that awareness of weapons of opportunity is far more valuable than anything that might be found in the small arms locker, so if someone doesn't get the memo I'll be fine without a gun, thanks...or at least better off than the average "good guy with a gun" would be.

If you think it takes "McGyver-like talent" to defend yourself without a gun it's no wonder you feel so needy about them. Go hit someone with a hammer and tell me how a gun in their belt would have "equalized" things.

Not what I said. What I said was hit somebody with a hammer. After you hit them with a hammer you can check to see if they had a gun. You'll have to check, because if they did it will have made no difference.

No, it really isn't. That's your fantasy world at play again right there. Ask anyone who has been a victim or witness to a crime. The "I can't believe this is happening" response (which is really a LACK of response) gives the criminal, who not only believes it but prepared for it, an insurmountable advantage. No gun can change that. If the criminal brings a hammer and murderous intent the homeowner with a gun and a fantasy gets clubbed with the hammer just like anybody else. The sellers of guns will refuse to accept that up to and beyond their dying breath, but it's the truth.

And if I walked up to George Zimmerman and hit him with a hammer it would be a pretty good demonstration that he isn't really "ready for danger at any moment." He manufactured a moment, so at that moment he was prepared. That's not the same thing.

Well, your continuing descent into fantasy coupled with the constant misrepresentations of what I said has become annoying, so I guess the only reasonable response here is ...ummm...no, can't say that...or that...or that...guess nothing appropriate is allowed.

Tried that. You refused to abandon your fantasy and go hit someone with a hammer. You also refuse to see your obvious errors no matter how deeply your nose is rubbed in them.

How did I misrepresent your argument?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How did I misrepresent your argument?

Consistently, and probably with malice aforethought is my guess.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Thing is that "own and keep guns" is not nearly as much of a problem when you remove the false premise of security. Tell a guy "man, you've got kids running through your house like a stampede, you gotta keep those things in a proper safe" and be met with "but I gotta have 'em ready or what good are they when the time o' need comes?" Tell a guy "look, when two people bang their cars together in a parking lot tempers get really short, that's a really bad time to introduce a gun to the mix" and be met with "but if it's not loaded in the console how will it save me from a carjacker?" If you take the fantasy of personal protection, or as Berzerker puts it 'equalization for the weak' out of it maybe you can talk sense to these people and them wanting to own and keep guns isn't such a problem.

I don't bother to tell them. I've called the police and CPS on fellow gun owners and appeared as prosecution witness in one of those cases that involved children being around unsecured firearms.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't bother to tell them. I've called the police and CPS on fellow gun owners and appeared as prosecution witness in one of those cases that involved children being around unsecured firearms.

Great, but how much impact did that have, in the aggregate? I suspect not enough to blunt the point that by perpetuating the 'guns make me safer' myth the actual result is encouraging the very behaviors that make gun owners and their circle less safe.

 

[Berzerker]

Consistently, and probably with malice aforethought is my guess.

Well, you shouldn't need to guess... I quoted you, so quote my consistent misrepresentation. You went from bragging about how you dont need a gun to deal with an armed intruder to extolling the efficacy of using a hammer on someone with a gun. Right?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, you shouldn't need to guess...

Well, that claim of guessing was actually an attempt at courtesy. I'm actually pretty sure about the malice aforethought, and would dearly love to respond in kind.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Great, but how much impact did that have, in the aggregate? I suspect not enough to blunt the point that by perpetuating the 'guns make me safer' myth the actual result is encouraging the very behaviors that make gun owners and their circle less safe.

There's as much noise against gun ownership in the ether, I don't think either has any real convincing power. People hear what they want to hear.

And yeah, better efforts to enforce existing gun laws should have an impact I'd think, probably more so than enacting bump stock/AR-15 bans, etc.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, that claim of guessing was actually an attempt at courtesy. I'm actually pretty sure about the malice aforethought, and would dearly love to respond in kind.

But you're not responding in kind, I'm not accusing you of malfeasance and refusing to support my accusation. I answer your questions and you ignore mine. You post insults instead of answers and accuse me of deserving them. I'd be happy if you responded in kind.