The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Aiken_Drumn]

A shame, but the outcome everyone expected.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

I wonder if this will affect sales?

 

[Farm Boy]

The Uvalde shooting put that "good guy with a gun" canard to bed permanently.

Wait wait wait. The Uvalde shooting* was the exact opposite of that mythos. That was literally the state's response to the active murdering of children with its monopoly on violence. The Texas Vogons were on full display. How's it go again? "We're here for your protection!"

*discounting one day being a permanent example.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

i am not a fan of standing doctrine, standing abuse, or bounty nonsense no matter which side of a topic it's on.

holding gun manufacturers liable is like holding construction equipment manufacturers liable for engineering failures or construction worker misconduct, straight nonsense. unless a manufacturer's employee is the one who is firing it or something.

same deal for randos going for abortion bounties, also nonsense.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sueing people is the naked force remedy for those high enough in the social ladder to hirea republican employed by the state to carry a gun to do forcing for them. Don't over think it too much! Sometimes it is just naked banditry.

 

[Lexicus]

Wait wait wait. The Uvalde shooting* was the exact opposite of that mythos. That was literally the state's response to the active murdering of children with its monopoly on violence. The Texas Vogons were on full display. How's it go again? "We're here for your protection!"

*discounting one day being a

There is literally no better guy with a gun than a peace officer.

i am not a fan of standing doctrine, standing abuse, or bounty nonsense no matter which side of a topic it's on.

holding gun manufacturers liable is like holding construction equipment manufacturers liable for engineering failures or construction worker misconduct, straight nonsense. unless a manufacturer's employee is the one who is firing it or something.

same deal for randos going for abortion bounties, also nonsense.

The difference being that someone who uses an AR-15 to murder children is using the product as intended by the manufacturer

 

[Farm Boy]

There is literally no better guy with a gun than a peace officer.

That's The State in this trope.

But far be it from me to dissuade you of the merits of Republicans with guns and special additional rights.

 

[IglooDame]

There is literally no better guy with a gun than a peace officer.

You'd be surprised. Whether it be better marksmanship, better handling of stress, better shoot/don't-shoot decisions, or better motives, there are definitely people that are better "guys with guns" than some of the peace officers out there.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

a peace officer

Peace or Police?

 

[Lexicus]

You'd be surprised. Whether it be better marksmanship, better handling of stress, better shoot/don't-shoot decisions, or better motives, there are definitely people that are better "guys with guns" than some of the peace officers out there.

In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic. But I do think that is a fair representation of how most people who subscribe to the "good guy with a gun" theory feel: perhaps they might think soldiers are better guys with guns, but their basic idea is that police officers can be trusted further than the average person - or do you think that's a strawman in some sense?

Peace or Police?

peace with malice aforethought

 

[Farm Boy]

The sort of person that wishes that if only there was a good guy with a gun present is also the sort of person that is very likely to say, "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away." That's how it gets used in my understanding. Sort of in the same vein that if the government, or its contractors/corrupt/insiders(say, Musk or IL weed vendors) can't do it(keep you safe) nobody is allowed to do it, not even yourself. Enforced helplessness.

 

[IglooDame]

In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic. But I do think that is a fair representation of how most people who subscribe to the "good guy with a gun" theory feel: perhaps they might think soldiers are better guys with guns, but their basic idea is that police officers can be trusted further than the average person - or do you think that's a strawman in some sense?

Yeah, I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. That aside, I do think police officers can be trusted further than the average person, and on average are more competent with a gun. But I do not want to put all my trust in them, and I don't think that the higher average competence (or trustworthiness) precludes allowing non-police people to be armed. Or in fewer words, "why not both"? So yeah, a bit of a strawman.

And I've been known to repeat the "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away" line myself, and recommend people check their town's average police response time to violent in-progress crime 911 calls.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. That aside, I do think police officers can be trusted further than the average person, and on average are more competent with a gun. But I do not want to put all my trust in them, and I don't think that the higher average competence (or trustworthiness) precludes allowing non-police people to be armed. Or in fewer words, "why not both"? So yeah, a bit of a strawman.

My actual presumption is that police officers are going to be, on average, more aggressive and violent than the average person, and that disarmament needs to start with the police. But I also don't really believe in "good guy with gun" theory, I think actual evidence demonstrates pretty conclusively that guns are more dangerous to their owners (and, perhaps more pointedly, to other members of their owners' households) than to "criminals". Or to put it another way the danger of simply having a gun in the house outweighs whatever benefit of safety and security it provides (not in every individual case but I do think that is true in the aggregate).

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wait wait wait. The Uvalde shooting* was the exact opposite of that mythos. That was literally the state's response to the active murdering of children with its monopoly on violence. The Texas Vogons were on full display. How's it go again? "We're here for your protection!"

*discounting one day being a permanent example.

"Good guy with a gun" failed in this instance. That's the bottom line. That slogan was exposed as the sham it always was. We can word salad ourselves to death over it, but "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" slogan been proven as a false/empty promise.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's more about people needing to own their own safety all the way down to naked force since the state will not have your best interests at heart. Given this incredibly sympathetic scenario and the abject failure of the state, I'd say the sentiment is at least relevant. Which sucks in the sick way.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't think giving all the schoolchildren loaded pistols and shooting lessons is a viable alternative to reducing people's access to guns in general. The state having folks best interests at heart is always going to be complicated at best, but every-man-for-himself is probably going to be at lot more... complicated.

 

[Farm Boy]

Shotguns, maybe, then!

People do seem to have a way of complicating things.

 

[IglooDame]

My actual presumption is that police officers are going to be, on average, more aggressive and violent than the average person, and that disarmament needs to start with the police. But I also don't really believe in "good guy with gun" theory, I think actual evidence demonstrates pretty conclusively that guns are more dangerous to their owners (and, perhaps more pointedly, to other members of their owners' households) than to "criminals". Or to put it another way the danger of simply having a gun in the house outweighs whatever benefit of safety and security it provides (not in every individual case but I do think that is true in the aggregate).

The evidence I've seen does not demonstrate that, and indeed since (statistically) my life just got significantly more dangerous anyway, I'm likely an outlier in your statistics. As you say, not in every individual case.

I don't think giving all the schoolchildren loaded pistols and shooting lessons is a viable alternative to reducing people's access to guns in general. The state having folks best interests at heart is always going to be complicated at best, but every-man-for-himself is probably going to be at lot more... complicated.

Surely there's middle ground between giving schoolchildren loaded pistols and reducing people's access to guns in general? The one that comes most readily to mind is allowing school staff to carry concealed.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Shotguns, maybe, then!

People do seem to have a way of complicating things.

Earth seems to be the most complicated planet in the known universe. The rest seem to just be rocks you can land on, or clouds that you cant.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is literally no better guy with a gun than a peace officer.



The difference being that someone who uses an AR-15 to murder children is using the product as intended by the manufacturer

There's a reason why school cuts target a 30-student classroom size ... because 30 round magazines are the most popular size for angry people