4 ms·

Other take: north of a dozen "good guys with guns" didn't do jack-shit. Other other take: military bases have very strict gun control, far in excess of the civ

Other take: north of a dozen "good guys with guns" didn't do jack-shit. Other other take: military bases have very strict gun control, far in excess of the civilian world, despite hopefully being far more reliable, stable, and law-abiding than the general population. It makes them more vulnerable in certain rare cases, but they judge it to make them far safer in general, so the rules stick. Other other other take: pro-gun people and pro-gun organizations sure are eager to keep gun-toting randos way the hell away from themselves, most of the time. Super weird behavior if they think more guns make them safer. See also: most courthouses even in red states, et c. When it actually matters, it's pretty clear what is regarded by basically everyone as making a place safer: fewer guns. It's only when people are talking a big game that they absolutely aren't willing to back up, that they claim to believe the opposite is true.

daenz 4y ago
>north of a dozen "good guys with guns" didn't do jack-shit. The "good guys with guns" clearly had no investment in a positive outcome, unlike the parents who were fighting the police to save their kids. A "good guy with a gun", by definition, has a personal, moral obligation to save lives...something that those police obviously lacked, so classifying them as such is disingenuous.
- corrral 4y ago
  OK, so we've solved school shootings, let's say (ignoring that when it actually matters ~everyone agrees removing guns makes things safer, let's just grant that for the sake of argument). How about when it's not kids, with relatives nearby? Vegas shooting? Malls? You gonna run in and risk your life to save some strangers? These cops didn't, despite guns and training and all that "warrior mentality" shit. [EDIT] My main point is just that we already know how to reduce gun violence. People with power, even if they're publicly extremely pro-gun, don't want people with guns around them unless they're paying them or they're cops. Organizations with the ability to curtail gun possession do so enthusiastically and almost universally, even if their members & leadership claim the solution to shootings is more guns in more places. So we flood the world with more guns and save (let's be extremely generous) 5% of the people who'd have been murdered with guns. Great. Wonderful. Could have done a lot better by doing the opposite, though.
  - daenz 4y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your point. The shooter was stopped by border patrol officers who risked their lives to end the shooting, so yes, there are people willing to step up and save lives. In this situation, these people were rarer than anyone would have liked. But we will always need them to stop violence, regardless of if guns are generally banned.
    - corrral 4y ago
      > I'm not sure I understand your point. I was responding, originally, to: > It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p Maybe it was a joke, but it's a bad one when some people actually think that. I'll reconsider my position when major organizations and government buildings and such start shifting to encouraging gun possession by people who aren't in law enforcement or the security staff. Meanwhile, it doesn't look like it's even controversial in any context other than partisan hacks promoting positions they don't (apparently) believe: keeping guns away is much safer than allowing them. I can tell this is true based on how, again, damn near everyone behaves when they have the choice to ban them or allow them, including the very people promoting more guns as the solution to gun violence. It is only not the obvious solution when the game isn't safety, but politics.
      - daenz 4y ago
        Unfortunately I am not going to bite on "everywhere is safer with more guns" argument because I also don't believe it :) You can believe that people shouldn't want/need guns while also believing they should be able to exercise that right if they want to. I hold that belief. Guns aren't for everyone, but who am I to deny someone of their right to defend themselves, for example, from an abusive ex-partner.

daenz 4y ago

>north of a dozen "good guys with guns" didn't do jack-shit. The "good guys with guns" clearly had no investment in a positive outcome, unlike the parents who were fighting the police to save their kids. A "good guy with a gun", by definition, has a personal, moral obligation to save lives...something that those police obviously lacked, so classifying them as such is disingenuous.

corrral 4y ago
OK, so we've solved school shootings, let's say (ignoring that when it actually matters ~everyone agrees removing guns makes things safer, let's just grant that for the sake of argument). How about when it's not kids, with relatives nearby? Vegas shooting? Malls? You gonna run in and risk your life to save some strangers? These cops didn't, despite guns and training and all that "warrior mentality" shit. [EDIT] My main point is just that we already know how to reduce gun violence. People with power, even if they're publicly extremely pro-gun, don't want people with guns around them unless they're paying them or they're cops. Organizations with the ability to curtail gun possession do so enthusiastically and almost universally, even if their members & leadership claim the solution to shootings is more guns in more places. So we flood the world with more guns and save (let's be extremely generous) 5% of the people who'd have been murdered with guns. Great. Wonderful. Could have done a lot better by doing the opposite, though.
- daenz 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point. The shooter was stopped by border patrol officers who risked their lives to end the shooting, so yes, there are people willing to step up and save lives. In this situation, these people were rarer than anyone would have liked. But we will always need them to stop violence, regardless of if guns are generally banned.
  - corrral 4y ago
    > I'm not sure I understand your point. I was responding, originally, to: > It sort of blows up the whole pro gun control argument that citizens shouldn't be expected to have to protect themselves but instead rely on law enforcement :p Maybe it was a joke, but it's a bad one when some people actually think that. I'll reconsider my position when major organizations and government buildings and such start shifting to encouraging gun possession by people who aren't in law enforcement or the security staff. Meanwhile, it doesn't look like it's even controversial in any context other than partisan hacks promoting positions they don't (apparently) believe: keeping guns away is much safer than allowing them. I can tell this is true based on how, again, damn near everyone behaves when they have the choice to ban them or allow them, including the very people promoting more guns as the solution to gun violence. It is only not the obvious solution when the game isn't safety, but politics.
    - daenz 4y ago
      Unfortunately I am not going to bite on "everywhere is safer with more guns" argument because I also don't believe it :) You can believe that people shouldn't want/need guns while also believing they should be able to exercise that right if they want to. I hold that belief. Guns aren't for everyone, but who am I to deny someone of their right to defend themselves, for example, from an abusive ex-partner.