Guns

[PocketZeven]

Personally, I've heard dumb stupid comments on right and left wing platforms. I don't think one side is any smarter. Hard core polarization is very dangerous and the more anyone abandons logic for either side, the further away we are going to get from moving the needle to the right direction and do anything meaningful and not in bad faith.

I am not saying that being dumb is exclusive to the right. I do have the opinion the more left or right you go, the more stupidity you will be confronted with. I might seem leftwing here in this forum, but I am actually considered more right then left, but obviously within the context of politics in my country.

 

[Danoff]

uh. Now you are dehumanizing? Have you ever read the immensily stupid comments on rightwing opinionated shows on videowebsites, reddit etc?

Certainly I have seen plenty of dumb comments. But I struggle to think of an example that is as significant as what you propose about the NRA. I think that the flat earther arguments is stronger than what you seem to claim for the NRA. What you propose of the NRA is that they'e so impossibly stupid that I honestly can't believe you stand behind proposing it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Certainly I have seen plenty of dumb comments. But I struggle to think of an example that is as significant as what you propose about the NRA. I think that the flat earther arguments is stronger than what you seem to claim for the NRA. What you propose of the NRA is that they'e so impossibly stupid that I honestly can't believe you stand behind proposing it.

That is how I feel about the policies of the NRA, Trumpism, yet I have faced reality and accepted there are actually people that do believe the BS.
It isnt even restricted to hyperbole statements, but obvious thruths as well.

 

[Danoff]

That is how I feel about the policies of the NRA, Trumpism, yet I have faced reality and accepted there are actually people that do believe the BS.
It isnt even restricted to hyperbole statements, but obvious thruths as well.

Why?

Why have you accepted that people believe that the t-shirt logo you showed is literal and not exaggeration?

 

[PocketZeven]

Why?

Why have you accepted that people believe that the t-shirt logo you showed is literal and not exaggeration?

Because I have spoken and seen people that do believe hyperboles like these. I mean a few years ago I wouldnt conceive flatearth would have so many followers as it actually has. Remember that before WW2 many people in germany were tricked to think all their problems were caused by jews. Doesnt really sound like common sense to me. Nowadays islam extremists are tricked to believe there are 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven.

 

[Danoff]

Because I have spoken and seen people that do believe hyperboles like these. I mean a few years ago I wouldnt conceive flatearth would have so many followers as it actually has. Remember that before WW2 many people in germany were tricked to think all their problems were caused by jews. Doesnt really sound like common sense to me. Nowadays islam extremists are tricked to believe there are 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven.

I'm not sure any of those are "like" this one we're talking about. Each of those other examples is far more believable than literally believing that no one without a gun has ever stopped anyone with a gun. Ever. In the history of humanity. And furthermore that it is not possible to do so. That's a step beyond 72 virgins. It's a step beyond flat earth. It's literally insane. I don't believe you have ever met anyone who believe that. And I don't believe anyone in the NRA believes it.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not sure any of those are "like" this one we're talking about. Each of those other examples is far more believable than literally believing that no one without a gun has ever stopped anyone with a gun. Ever. In the history of humanity. And furthermore that it is not possible to do so. That's a step beyond 72 virgins. It's a step beyond flat earth. It's literally insane. I don't believe you have ever met anyone who believe that. And I don't believe anyone in the NRA believes it.

I agree fully, but yet there are people who deny common sense and actual evidence. It is the world we live in.

 

[Danoff]

I agree fully, but yet there are people who deny common sense and actual evidence. It is the world we live in.

Ok, sure. But that's not the same thing as what you're advocating. Just because people deny common sense or evidence does not mean that anyone literally believes that no one has stopped someone with a gun without a gun, or that it is impossible to do so. Let alone that someone in the NRA organization believes it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok, sure. But that's not the same thing as what you're advocating. Just because people deny common sense or evidence does not mean that anyone literally believes that no one has stopped someone with a gun without a gun, or that it is impossible to do so. Let alone that someone in the NRA organization believes it.

It isnt just about denying common sense, but more if you repeat it often enough people will actually start believing. They believe any occurence of someone stopping a bad guy with a gun, without a gun are anecdotal or the fault of the bad guy. I have had this discussion many times. They truly believe people are helpless without a gun, even if you prove that people can and have stopped shooters unarmed. Its mindboggling.

 

[Danoff]

It isnt just about denying common sense, but more if you repeat it often enough people will actually start believing. They believe any occurence of someone stopping a bad guy with a gun, without a gun are anecdotal or the fault of the bad guy.

...but they believe it has happened right? Because if so, that's pretty much made my point for me.

 

[PocketZeven]

...but they believe it has happened right? Because if so, that's pretty much made my point for me.

What point? They still believe the only way is to have a good guy with a gun. Their reasoning behind unarmed stopages are the guns werent properly loaded, the person had a bad aim etc. The thought of preventing that person to obtain a gun, detecting disturbed people as early as possible do not register.

 

[Danoff]

What point? They still believe the only way is to have a good guy with a gun. Their reasoning behind unarmed stopages are the guns werent properly loaded, the person had a bad aim etc. The thought of preventing that person to obtain a gun, detecting disturbed people as early as possible do not register.

The point that apparently they don't believe the statement literally. That it in fact is possible to stop someone with a gun without having a gun yourself. Just not... lemme see, what phrase did I use...

What they mean is that is that this is the most effective, least dangerous way to do it.

 

[PocketZeven]

The point that apparently they don't believe the statement literally. That it in fact is possible to stop someone with a gun without having a gun yourself. Just not... lemme see, what phrase did I use...

I understand your argument. Excluding and discrediting other options to disarm a bad guy and concluding only armed people can disarm a bad guy does conclude that people support that view. You know it shouldnt be taken literally and I know it, but some people just dont.

I know its hard for you to fathom, but I have had multiple discussions about this. They truly believe there is no other way to stop a bad guy. When I did provide evidence thay point to the BS arguments I just cited.

 

[Danoff]

I understand your argument. Excluding and discrediting other options to disarm a bad guy and concluding only armed people can disarm a bad guy does conclude that people support that view. You know it shouldnt be taken literally and I know it, but some people just dont.

I know its hard for you to fathom, but I have had multiple discussions about this. They truly believe there is no other way to stop a bad guy. When I did provide evidence thay point to the BS arguments I just cited.

The BS arguments you cited show that they do not take the view literally, but rather figuratively.

 

[PocketZeven]

The BS arguments you cited show that they do not take the view literally, but rather figuratively.

Perhaps, but there are enough situations to also debunk the figurative interpertation.

 

[Famine]

Perhaps, but there are enough situations to also debunk the figurative interpertation.

You haven't shown that yet though. Your 160-incident data set did not include information on whether citizens had access to guns or not - which is why I asked about that information. It also seems not to include cops as "good guys with guns", which is bizarre.

We need to know this information in order to determine whether having a good guy with a gun is more or less effective at stopping a bad guy with a gun than a good guy without a gun.

 

[PocketZeven]

You haven't shown that yet though. Your 160-incident data set did not include information on whether citizens had access to guns or not - which is why I asked about that information. It also seems not to include cops as "good guys with guns", which is bizarre.

We need to know this information in order to determine whether having a good guy with a gun is more or less effective at stopping a bad guy with a gun than a good guy without a gun.

I did. The premise was that only good guys can stop bad guys. Out of 160 there were 21 instances of unarmed stoppages. I can not answer information that isnt in the report. Contact the FBI for additional information.

You are assuming a claim that one is more efficient then the other. Such a claim wasnt made as I explained to danoff.

 

[Famine]

I did. The premise was that only good guys can stop bad guys. Out of 160 there were 21 instances of unarmed stoppages.

No, that was your argument against the literal version of the premise (which, as @Danoff pointed out, doesn't take even a second's thought to debunk anyway). You have just said that:

there are enough situations to also debunk the figurative interpertation.

You need to present that information for the figurative version of the premise to show this. That would require things like knowing in how many of the incidents the public had access to firearms, and whether the police - who have firearms - stopped the incidents.

I hesitate to ask, but you do know the difference between literal and figurative, right?

I can not answer information that isnt in the report. Contact the FBI for additional information.

Yeah, that's still not how this works. The FBI isn't posting here, you are. If your source isn't good enough for your case, find a better source.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, that was your argument against the literal version of the premise (which, as @Danoff pointed out, doesn't take even a second's thought to debunk anyway). You have just said that:

You need to present that information for the figurative version of the premise to show this. That would require things like knowing in how many of the incidents the public had access to firearms, and whether the police - who have firearms - stopped the incidents.

I hesitate to ask, but you do know the difference between literal and figurative, right?

Yeah, that's still not how this works. The FBI isn't posting here, you are. If your source isn't good enough for your case, find a better source.

Unless you are making up a claim, I did not make. You suggest there was a claim that one is more effective then the other. I did not make that, therefore I dont need to provide the info. Is it so difficult for you to understand?

We need to know this information in order to determine whether having a good guy with a gun is more or less effective at stopping a bad guy with a gun than a good guy without a gun.

 

[Famine]

You suggest there was a claim that one is more effective then the other. I did not make that

Let's ignore for a second the fact that you actually made that exact claim and, when challenged on it, edited it out of your post, and come right up to this very second, where you have stated:

Perhaps, but there are enough situations to also debunk the figurative interpertation.

This is your claim, right here, right now. It's right there. Look at it.

You now need to show these situations. You can't use the evidence that "proved" the literal interpretation (which @Danoff has shown you several times cannot be true anyway) to be incorrect, because that only deals with the literal interpretation you were using. You have clearly said that there are enough situations to also debunk the figurative interpretation, so you need to show those too.

The figurative interpretation - which would be something like "the best way to" rather than "only" - is radically different from the literal interpretation. They are different words and they mean different things. Is it so difficult for you to understand?

As I said, it's literally (there we go again) impossible to have a sensible conversation with you, because you simply cannot grasp the concept that the words you use have actual meanings and then you get angry about it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Let's ignore for a second the fact that you actually made that exact claim and, when challenged on it, edited it out of your post, and come right up to this very second, where you have stated:

This is your claim, right here, right now. It's right there. Look at it.

You now need to show these situations. You can't use the evidence that "proved" the literal interpretation (which @Danoff has shown you several times cannot be true anyway) to be incorrect, because that only deals with the literal interpretation you were using. You have clearly said that there are enough situations to also debunk the figurative interpretation, so you need to show those too.

The figurative interpretation - which would be something like "the best way to" rather than "only" - is radically different from the literal interpretation. They are different words and they mean different things. Is it so difficult for you to understand?

As I said, it's literally (there we go again) impossible to have a sensible conversation with you, because you simply cannot grasp the concept that the words you use have actual meanings and then you get angry about it.

Remember it is you who more often engages the conversation with me. I dont have that much trouble speaking with danoff. You always like to interpet my posts incorrectly, even after I explained what I meant, acknowledged my mistake in use of words and after I made a correction. But that is apparantly something you really enjoy to do. But I am happy to entertain you and explain what figuratively meant with the discussion with danoff. The premise was the litterally it would have excluded historical instances of unarmed stoppages, figuratively it would acknowledge there are some rare instances. I just highlighted that there are more ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. I did not claim that unarmed stoppages are more effictive then armed stoppages. That figurative interpertation is something you made up.

 

[Famine]

You always like to interpet my posts incorrectly, even after I explained what I meant, acknowledged my mistake in use of words and after I made a correction. But that is apparantly something you really enjoy to do.

Actually I can't stand it, and I wish you'd use the right words first time, not lie about using the wrong words, lie about what words other people have used and then leave passive-aggressive digs like it's all my fault.

I'd like to have a sensible, reasonable discussion about things - this part of the forum has always been my favourite. That's why despite your behaviour and attitude towards me, I keep trying to engage you with questions that you rarely answer.

But I am happy to entertain you and explain what figuratively meant with the discussion with danoff. The premise was the litterally it would have excluded historical instances of unarmed stoppages, figuratively it would acknowledge there are some rare instances.

Taking this, that the NRA's claim about good guys stopping bad guys with guns means that sometimes it happens without guns, as your interpretation, how does your data - which shows one-eighth of spree shooting instances stopped without firearms, but has no data on firearm availability, or where police (who are armed) stopped the shootings - show that the figurative version is wrong like you claim?

Quick clue: it doesn't, because it doesn't show these basic pieces of info. Find a source that does show it.

I just highlighted that there are more ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. I did not claim that unarmed stoppages are more effictive then armed stoppages.

You claimed that guns were not very efficient at stopping spree shootings. You then lied about that claim. When quoted a second time on it you argued that I was interpreting the word wrongly. When further pressed, you edited it out of your post. Now you're lying about ever making that claim...

That figurative interpertation is something you made up.

The word "figurative" doesn't belong in that sentence, and I at no point made that claim anywhere.

I've warned you about making up what I've said, repeatedly. That's the last time it happens.

 

[Danoff]

. I just highlighted that there are more ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. I did not claim that unarmed stoppages are more effictive then armed stoppages.

What I understood from your claim was the some people believed literally that it is impossible to stop a bad guy with a gun without a gun. When questioned, you responded by saying that people do believe it literally and gave examples of people who you thought did but apparently do not (because they dismiss counter-examples as rare or unimportant, rather than stating that those counter-examples do not exist). I think this actually shows my point quite well, that the people that subscribe to this claim are doing so in generalities.

arguments you cited show that they do not take the view literally, but rather figuratively.

Perhaps, but there are enough situations to also debunk the figurative interpertation.

This is a tough one for me to understand. There are enough situations to debunk the idea that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? That's a tall order. You've got your work cut out for you to support that.

 

[PocketZeven]

What I understood from your claim was the some people believed literally that it is impossible to stop a bad guy with a gun without a gun. When questioned, you responded by saying that people do believe it literally and gave examples of people who you thought did but apparently do not (because they dismiss counter-examples as rare or unimportant, rather than stating that those counter-examples do not exist). I think this actually shows my point quite well, that the people that subscribe to this claim are doing so in generalities.





This is a tough one for me to understand. There are enough situations to debunk the idea that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? That's a tall order. You've got your work cut out for you to support that.

In continuation to our private conversation, I want to respond that if regular people armed with guns are treated and subject to the same standards as police, I might have a more positive attitude to the right to bear arms. But I still firmly believe bearing arms should be a privilege and not a right.

 

[ryzno]

In continuation to our private conversation, I want to respond that if regular people armed with guns are treated and subject to the same standards as police, I might have a more positive attitude to the right to bear arms. But I still firmly believe bearing arms should be a privilege and not a right.

They are, unlike the police though they don't get off as easily of no charges filed for an unjustified shooting. Remember BLM?
And it is a privilege, I'll say it for the umpteenth time. I can't own a gun.

At least I think I can't, I can vote but I honestly don't want to go through whatever crap may happen if I try to buy one and can't.

 

[PocketZeven]

They are, unlike the police though they don't get off as easily of no charges filed for an unjustified shooting. Remember BLM?
And it is a privilege, I'll say it for the umpteenth time. I can't own a gun.

At least I think I can't, I can vote but I honestly don't want to go through whatever crap may happen if I try to buy one and can't.

Sorry there is context missing in the post.

The ability to buy and own a gun I guess greatly depends on what state you live

 

[Blood Eagle]

In continuation to our private conversation, I want to respond that if regular people armed with guns are treated and subject to the same standards as police, I might have a more positive attitude to the right to bear arms. But I still firmly believe bearing arms should be a privilege and not a right.

Armed citizens are actually held to a higher standard than police in the US. If police make incorrect deadly force decisions, rarely are they ever held accountable for it. On the flip side of that, if a regular person shoots and kills someone under the same sort of mistakes, you can bet they will be prosecuted and ultimately convicted. I think you need to realize that most standards of police firearm training and retention are very low. You also don't really take into account that there are literally millions of US Citizens that do have some level of formal firearm training and some a very high level by serving in the armed forces. There are also probably millions who have formal civilian training. I think the idea you and many other people have is that the majority of gun owners in America are types who buy it, don't know how to use it, stash it in their night stand and never fire it. There are those types as well but they are definitely not a very accurate representation of American gun owners as a whole.

I can't own a gun. At least I think I can't.

Are you a felon? Have you ever been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence? Do you have any active restraining orders against you? Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective? Here is one I don't agree with but it's federal, do you have a medical marijuana card? If the answers are no to all, you can own a gun.

 

[PocketZeven]

Armed citizens are actually held to a higher standard than police in the US. If police make incorrect deadly force decisions, rarely are they ever held accountable for it. On the flip side of that, if a regular person shoots and kills someone under the same sort of mistakes, you can bet they will be prosecuted and ultimately convicted. I think you need to realize that most standards of police firearm training and retention are very low. You also don't really take into account that there are literally millions of US Citizens that do have some level of formal firearm training and some a very high level by serving in the armed forces. There are also probably millions who have formal civilian training. I think the idea you and many other people have is that the majority of gun owners in America are types who buy it, don't know how to use it, stash it in their night stand and never fire it. There are those types as well but they are definitely not a very accurate representation of American gun owners as a whole.

Sorry there is context missing. I had a time-out from this thread and had to continue my conversation with Danoff in private. Some of the context missing is that we discussed that police have registration of weapons and mandatory training. If the standards are low, then they should be increased. Also I argued that more police does decrease crime according to global stats. So my case was that the phrase "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" Should be: "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a policeofficer with a gun"

 

[Blood Eagle]

Sorry there is context missing. I had a time-out from this thread and had to continue my conversation with Danoff in private. Some of the context missing is that we discussed that police have registration of weapons and mandatory training. If the standards are low, then they should be increased. Also I argued that more police does decrease crime according to global stats. So my case was that the phrase "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" Should be: "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a policeofficer with a gun"

We've discussed this before but what would a mandatory registration accomplish? If a citizen wants a concealed weapons permit there already is mandatory training unless you live in Arizona where it's perfectly legal to conceal a firearm without a permit (if you meet the criteria aka are legal to own guns). I agree that police need more training. More police may reduce crime overall but cannot and will not eliminate it. Also more police means higher taxes because police are paid by the taxpayers. So now we are talking about limiting people's rights even more, raising taxes, making things mandatory that don't really serve a purpose from a crime reduction standpoint (mandatory registration). When you say police have mandatory registration, are you talking about their own privately owned guns or the ones they are issued? Their private guns would only be registered if the state requires it (like California) but gun laws for police are more lax than regular civilians due to law enforcement exemptions. That means police can own stuff the most citizens can't. For example, in California we have a safe handgun roster. Basically means that you cannot buy certain handguns here that haven't been subject to California sponsored specific testing like drop tests etc. Police officers can buy anything that doesn't meet the requirements because of the law enforcement exemption. Their duty weapons? Those belong to the department and arguably the taxpayers (some small rural departments use their own). Privately owned guns are serialized and there is federal and state paperwork involved that has a record of the number and the person. Issued weapons are serialized and attached to the officer it was issued to. Military weapons are serialized and loaned to a servicemember through an armory to be returned at a certain time and date. That serial number is recorded and attached to the servicemenber. Those aren't privately owned guns, those belong to the government and arguably the taxpayer. I've heard plenty of people advocate for an armory style US gun owner system but those guns are your personal property hence my opposition. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a police officer with a gun". That's just untrue. Police were already included the first way when "good guy" was mentioned.

 

[ryzno]

Are you a felon?

I was convicted of a felony, I took the first offenders act, which I screwed up and finished the rest of my probation in jail. I can vote so I don't know if the state doesn't know or the feds or since I completed my time I was awarded the first offenders act. I honestly don't know, I've had jobs that took issue with it and others that didn't care.