4 ms·

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 g

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.

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.