Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[Ruairi77]

Sorry, still confused, you'll have to help me more. Why are gun owners to be concerned with your opinion about whether personal protection is a valid justification for exercising one of their personal liberties, and how does your additional opinion about your own personal safety make any difference?

Ok, one more time then.
Birkenhead Blue was sick of the 'personal protection' trope.
You questioned why gun owners should care what he thinks.
actually, I'm kinda with prev here.
If you cant see why gun owners should care about the concerns of non gun owners, I cant find an argument to convince you.

 

[SteveSC]

Ok, one more time then.
Birkenhead Blue was sick of the 'personal protection' trope.
You questioned why gun owners should care what he thinks.
actually, I'm kinda with prev here.
If you cant see why gun owners should care about the concerns of non gun owners, I cant find an argument to convince you.

The wild west mentality. I have a gun you don't, so i am the only one that matters.

 

[DanEFC92]

Normal, healthy attitude towards weapons. And, as someone in the comments pointed out, it has the same nickname as Josef Mengele. So that’s something.

Sick country.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

No personal animosity toward you, but why should a gun owner care about what you find to be valid or sensible?

They shouldn’t. At all.

They should probably care that pretty much every study shows that owning a gun/having one in your house increases the chances of someone in your house being shot, whether by their own hand or someone else’s

 

[Pettifogger]

What is the base root of gun possession in the US? Is it because you can, they're enchanting to some, defence, what exactly?

I don't get the desire, and, to some, need, to own a gun.

Guns are now aligned with conservative ideology in the United States. One is a proxy for the other. So yes, it's definitely "because I can" somewhat (the general I here). It's a political fashion statement, I'd say, or at least the AR-15 craze is.

I'm from the South, so long before this started, it was extremely normal for people to own firearms. Rifles and shotguns for hunting, sidearms for collecting/personal defense (or hunting). Personal protection too, of course. We have a lot of brazen crime in the states. Peoples' doors get kicked in by gun wielding criminals, so there is definitely a "if all the criminals have guns, I want a gun too" thing. I don't find that particularly irrational, although I do fully recognize that the need for defensive use is relatively unlikely.

 

[Pettifogger]

They shouldn’t. At all.

They should probably care that pretty much every study shows that owning a gun/having one in your house increases the chances of someone in your house being shot, whether by their own hand or someone else’s

Problem with this is that for safe, sensible people, the risk is negligible. Of course, everyone thinks they're safe and sensible, when many are terribly irresponsible.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Problem with this is that for safe, sensible people, the risk is negligible. Of course, everyone thinks they're safe and sensible, when many are terribly irresponsible.

You mean safe, sensible people, like those who keep their guns locked in a safe, and their ammunition in another, as advised?

Doesn’t seem like those “safely owned” guns would be much protection...

But quite aside from that, I’m not in any doubt that gun owners would disagree with me. Doesn’t make them any less statistically incorrect though.

EDIT: also, safe, sensible people get depressed too.

 

[Pettifogger]

Ok, one more time then.
Birkenhead Blue was sick of the 'personal protection' trope.
You questioned why gun owners should care what he thinks.
actually, I'm kinda with prev here.
If you cant see why gun owners should care about the concerns of non gun owners, I cant find an argument to convince you.

The disconnect here is that gun owners in generally don't care what you think "they need" particularly if that need is in a vacuum. That's what I'm referencing. Now, if you tie their needs to some perceived societal gain, it becomes a more coherent argument. "I think the advantages of personal protection are overblown, and don't outweigh the societal benefit to a reduction in guns" makes a lot more sense in my mind.

But I think you're 100% correct in that generally, it's going to be tough to get gun owners to care about concerns of non-gun owners, especially if you talk in terms of what is/is not a valid basis for ownership for an individual gun owner.

 

[SteveSC]

You mean safe, sensible people, like those who keep their guns locked in a safe, and their ammunition in another, as advised?

Doesn’t seem like those “safely owned” guns would be much protection...

But quite aside from that, I’m not in any doubt that gun owners would disagree with me. Doesn’t make them any less statistically incorrect though.

I bet even if they had the gun on them or close to them the stats would favour the person invading the home.

Most home invasions happen at night or when there is no one home. This idea they have that most burglars are opportunists is laughable.

Most gun owners if they were asleep would simply be caught unawares unless they stay up waiting for it to happen.

With alarm systems, animals and of course the knowledge that they may in fact be armed i am sure burglars have stepped up their game too.

 

[Pettifogger]

You mean safe, sensible people, like those who keep their guns locked in a safe, and their ammunition in another, as advised?

Doesn’t seem like those “safely owned” guns would be much protection...

But quite aside from that, I’m not in any doubt that gun owners would disagree with me. Doesn’t make them any less statistically incorrect though.

EDIT: also, safe, sensible people get depressed too.

I don't disagree about the statistics. But the statistics likely don't account for the responsibility of owners, do they? Beyond safes and ammo separation, I highly suspect that people who are more responsible generally, who practice safe handling of firearms, etc. have a far lower risk of an incident in the home. I imagine you would accept that statistics can't accurately account for that.

But my point is that while some people will go "that statistic doesn't much apply to me, because I'm a responsible person" and they'll be correct, a lot of people will say the same thing and they'll be very, very wrong.

 

[Prevenger17]

What is the base root of gun possession in the US? Is it because you can, they're enchanting to some, defence, what exactly?

All of them except defence. Unless you count their imaginary war against tyranny

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I don't disagree about the statistics. But the statistics likely don't account for the responsibility of owners, do they? Beyond safes and ammo separation, I highly suspect that people who are more responsible generally, who practice safe handling of firearms, etc. have a far lower risk of an incident in the home. I imagine you would accept that statistics can't accurately account for that.

But my point is that while some people will go "that statistic doesn't much apply to me, because I'm a responsible person" and they'll be correct, a lot of people will say the same thing and they'll be very, very wrong.

I agree, but my associated point was that by definition, those guns which are safely, sanely owned (and therefore safely stored etc) are consequently of little use as protection.

 

[Ruairi77]

I agree, but my associated point was that by definition, those guns which are safely, sanely owned (and therefore safely stored etc) are consequently of little use as protection.

You've probably seen it but if not, Jim Jeffries is pretty funny about it.

 

[magicjuan]

Guns are now aligned with conservative ideology in the United States. One is a proxy for the other. So yes, it's definitely "because I can" somewhat (the general I here). It's a political fashion statement, I'd say, or at least the AR-15 craze is.

I'm from the South, so long before this started, it was extremely normal for people to own firearms. Rifles and shotguns for hunting, sidearms for collecting/personal defense (or hunting). Personal protection too, of course. We have a lot of brazen crime in the states. Peoples' doors get kicked in by gun wielding criminals, so there is definitely a "if all the criminals have guns, I want a gun too" thing. I don't find that particularly irrational, although I do fully recognize that the need for defensive use is relatively unlikely.

So to some degree there is a fashion element, one thst is supported and promoted by organisations such as the NRA, who, by their very nature have a need to fulfill that other right, to profit.
The promotion in a glamourous sense or of fear, has embedded itself in the American psyche over many decades, probably from the get go to defend against the indigenous population would you say? And that is why it is seen as a 'right'?
Is it male dominated? And if so is there an element of 'penis extension'. Genuine point.

 

[Pettifogger]

I agree, but my associated point was that by definition, those guns which are safely, sanely owned (and therefore safely stored etc) are consequently of little use as protection.

I understand your point, but I think it's narrow. I think what you're talking about would help prevent kids getting their hands on guns and things like that. But more broadly, you hear stories of guys shooting their wives while cleaning weapons (or themselves) and similarly absent minded things. In other words, they're negligent. Anyway, my point is not all of the responsibility/safety steps preclude use in a defensive situation.