4 ms·

Maybe we should do absolutely anything other than increasing the number of guns in a crowded, enclosed space.

by Bud 8y ago

userbinator 8y ago
The more likely it is for criminals to be fatally shot by everyone around them if they try to do anything, the less likely they're going to try --- even if they themselves have a gun, they're going to be outnumbered.
- iknowstuff 8y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/80rno0/fatal_school_shootings_in_europe_compared_to_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/80rno0/fatal_school...
- matchbok 8y ago
  This is 100% wrong. Not sure if you are joking or just misinformed. Everyone already knows there are tons of guns out there. It doesn't deter crazy crime at all.
  - pteredactyl 8y ago
    That's because it's illegal to carry them pretty much anywhere in public.
  - burfog 8y ago
    Yes, there are tons of guns, but who has them? Legal ownership is rare due to the law. Lawbreakers don't follow the law by definition, so they have guns and you can't change that. There is something to be said for evening things up.
- vikingcaffiene 8y ago
  No. Just no. What you’re going to have is a shit load of people with guns firing in close quarters. When the police get there they’ll have no idea who the bad guy is. How about we just make the damn trains more safe instead of advocating for Mad Max Thunderdome?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Among the millions (or hundreds of thousands) of uses of a gun in self defense each year in America, most don't involve shootings.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - vikingcaffiene 8y ago
      That has nothing to do with what I was commenting upon. There are no deer or elk to hunt on the BART that I am aware of.
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        Think of it like having a lot more cops on BART, only with accountability for shooting the wrong guy.
        vikingcaffiene 8y ago
        I misread your initial comment as saying that guns have uses besides self defense (which I actually think is true). So my comment probably didn’t make a ton of sense without that context. I get the logic you are putting down here. But I think you are overlooking the fact that people are panicky and stupid in group settings. Give em all guns and a reason to panic in tight quarters. It doesn’t add up man.
        SamReidHughes 8y ago
        Last I checked -- and I don't feel like googling it so bear with me if it's not true or on shaky ground -- it's generally been found that concealed carriers are less likely to shoot innocent bystanders than cops. So I'd compare the following situations: is having a lot more cops bad? If not, then replacing them with non-police is better, in terms of shooting innocent bystanders. We already have a lot of states where you're allowed to just, like, carry a gun, and it turns out to be no big deal. I think the better counter-argument is that bad people could carry guns, and have a lot more opportunities to use them. But this is based on the assumption that my first sentence in this post is correct.
- notyourwork 8y ago
  Can we not make baseless claims and back up things especially when they involve justification of a fatal weapon?
- wahern 8y ago
  That logic makes some sense in rural areas where it's a safe assumption that many, if not most, homeowners are armed. Where I grew up, anybody thinking of breaking into a house or even of trespassing had to contend with the very real possibility of being shot at; not only were guns common, but many people kept them loaded and readily accessible. But in areas where few law-abiding citizens are armed and most people have no inclination to arm themselves, all lax gun laws do is put more guns in the hands of high-risk individuals. In most of the incidents discussed in this thread pepper spray would have been more than sufficient to thwart an attacker, but nobody is carrying that, either. It's also worth pointing out that in rural areas you're rarely in a situation where you're in physically close proximity to potentially dangerous people. I suspect both urban and rural folks are similarly averse to escalating violence, but there's much more ambiguity in urban environments, which explains why people don't even bother carrying, let alone using, pepper spray in cities, whereas in extremely rural areas people keep loaded shotguns in the corner. That and violence is much less common than we believe, and we actually behave accordingly even though we say that we feel unsafe. The calculus is the same in both urban and rural areas, but the input parameters produce wildly different results.

Maybe we should do absolutely anything other than increasing the number of guns in a crowded, enclosed space.

by Bud 8y ago

Maybe we should do absolutely anything other than increasing the number of guns in a crowded, enclosed space.

The more likely it is for criminals to be fatally shot by everyone around them if they try to do anything, the less likely they're going to try --- even if they themselves have a gun, they're going to be outnumbered.

iknowstuff 8y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/80rno0/fatal_school_shootings_in_europe_compared_to_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/80rno0/fatal_school...
matchbok 8y ago
This is 100% wrong. Not sure if you are joking or just misinformed. Everyone already knows there are tons of guns out there. It doesn't deter crazy crime at all.
- pteredactyl 8y ago
  That's because it's illegal to carry them pretty much anywhere in public.
- burfog 8y ago
  Yes, there are tons of guns, but who has them? Legal ownership is rare due to the law. Lawbreakers don't follow the law by definition, so they have guns and you can't change that. There is something to be said for evening things up.
vikingcaffiene 8y ago
No. Just no. What you’re going to have is a shit load of people with guns firing in close quarters. When the police get there they’ll have no idea who the bad guy is. How about we just make the damn trains more safe instead of advocating for Mad Max Thunderdome?
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Among the millions (or hundreds of thousands) of uses of a gun in self defense each year in America, most don't involve shootings.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - vikingcaffiene 8y ago
    That has nothing to do with what I was commenting upon. There are no deer or elk to hunt on the BART that I am aware of.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Think of it like having a lot more cops on BART, only with accountability for shooting the wrong guy.
      - vikingcaffiene 8y ago
        I misread your initial comment as saying that guns have uses besides self defense (which I actually think is true). So my comment probably didn’t make a ton of sense without that context. I get the logic you are putting down here. But I think you are overlooking the fact that people are panicky and stupid in group settings. Give em all guns and a reason to panic in tight quarters. It doesn’t add up man.
        SamReidHughes 8y ago
        Last I checked -- and I don't feel like googling it so bear with me if it's not true or on shaky ground -- it's generally been found that concealed carriers are less likely to shoot innocent bystanders than cops. So I'd compare the following situations: is having a lot more cops bad? If not, then replacing them with non-police is better, in terms of shooting innocent bystanders. We already have a lot of states where you're allowed to just, like, carry a gun, and it turns out to be no big deal. I think the better counter-argument is that bad people could carry guns, and have a lot more opportunities to use them. But this is based on the assumption that my first sentence in this post is correct.
notyourwork 8y ago
Can we not make baseless claims and back up things especially when they involve justification of a fatal weapon?
wahern 8y ago
That logic makes some sense in rural areas where it's a safe assumption that many, if not most, homeowners are armed. Where I grew up, anybody thinking of breaking into a house or even of trespassing had to contend with the very real possibility of being shot at; not only were guns common, but many people kept them loaded and readily accessible. But in areas where few law-abiding citizens are armed and most people have no inclination to arm themselves, all lax gun laws do is put more guns in the hands of high-risk individuals. In most of the incidents discussed in this thread pepper spray would have been more than sufficient to thwart an attacker, but nobody is carrying that, either. It's also worth pointing out that in rural areas you're rarely in a situation where you're in physically close proximity to potentially dangerous people. I suspect both urban and rural folks are similarly averse to escalating violence, but there's much more ambiguity in urban environments, which explains why people don't even bother carrying, let alone using, pepper spray in cities, whereas in extremely rural areas people keep loaded shotguns in the corner. That and violence is much less common than we believe, and we actually behave accordingly even though we say that we feel unsafe. The calculus is the same in both urban and rural areas, but the input parameters produce wildly different results.