3 ms·

Guns, but only for criminals and rich people? No thanks.

by daenz 4y ago

Nextgrid 4y ago
Better than having guns for criminals, rich people and unhinged teenagers looking to shoot their school.
- daenz 4y ago
  The largest demographic (hundreds of millions of people), which you seem to have left out, is law abiding citizens looking to protect themselves and their families.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Protect themselves from what? Unhinged people with guns? Seems like recursion. People in other countries where guns are illegal seem to do just fine without having to protect themselves using their own firearms.
    - daenz 4y ago
      People in unarmed countries get stabbed/beaten/shot if their attacker is larger/stronger/younger than them. Here, older/weaker people have a chance to protect their lives. Firearms are frequently used defensively to stop attacks. Here's a couple from the past 2 weeks: https://abc7.com/moreno-valley-intruder-shot-homeowner-investigation/12004046/ https://abc7.com/moreno-valley-intruder-shot-homeowner-inves... https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-at-clearwater-home-police-say/ https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-a...
      - mullingitover 4y ago
        Anecdotal evidence is great for appeals to emotion, but the data tells a different story[1]. [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
        daenz 4y ago
        I can show you hundreds of news stories of defensive gun use from the past 6 months, or you can be satisfied with a single study, which also claims: >women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault I don't know why anyone would choose to believe something that is so easily falsifiable with a 2 minute google search[0] 0. https://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-killed-by-victim/ https://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-kil...
        mullingitover 4y ago
        As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. It's great that you read the page I cited, but you cherry picked your quote. Here's the full section: > 11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions > Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss. > This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths. > Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27. Emphasis added.
        daenz 4y ago
        >(in more than 300 cases) Yes, this shows the bias of the authors. They come to a conclusion that is only supported by undersampled data, yet their language is strongly biased towards that specific conclusion ("women never..."). Unbiased language would not read that way. I suspect the language flies under your radar because you seem to agree with the conclusions. But its a huge red flag that the authors are not approaching the subject in good faith. Studies on DGU is an oft-treaded subject. I've looked at quite a bit of data, and if you have also, you would also know how and why it is so difficult to compile reliable data on the subject. Which is why I find it nearly futile to throw studies at each other.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      >Protect themselves from what? Bears, wolves, mountain lions, elk, moose, bison are some of the things.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      >Protect themselves from what? Unhinged people with guns? Seems like recursion. Protect themselves from larger people with other weapons. Protect themselves from unarmed people who want to kill them. Protect themselves from crazy guy who made home-made shotgun with home-made gunpowder and home-made projectiles. Protect themselves from cartel members who smuggle weapons channeled by foreign militaries. Protect themselves from wild animals, including grizzly bears that inhabit the US and Polar bears that inhabit places like Svalbard. Protect themselves from rabid or poorly trained aggressive domestic animals, such as the many dogs that attack and even kill children annually.
      - daenz 4y ago
        I've never seen anyone argue against this that wasn't essentially, "oh well, deal with it I guess." The police can't make it in time, and have no duty to protect you. Any other weapon that doesn't provide distance and lethal force is a liability. So what is the expectation for innocent victims, especially the smaller or weaker ones? Just get beaten/killed? I've never seen a real answer to this.
        mullingitover 4y ago
        > So what is the expectation for innocent victims, especially the smaller or weaker ones? Just get beaten/killed? I've never seen a real answer to this. Pepper spray is pretty great. You don't have to worry about killing someone, so you can use it with a lot less hesitation. I've been in a situation where I was in physical danger, but from someone I didn't want to kill, and pepper spray immediately ended the danger for me and allowed me to get away. A gun would not have done that because I wouldn't have used the gun.
        daenz 4y ago
        I agree there are situations where nonlethal force is appropriate, and it sounds like you were in one of those situations. There are other situations where someone wants to and is trying to kill you, and pepper spray does not incapacitate that kind of aggression reliably. It also does not work well on drunk people or people with a high pain threshold tolerance.

Guns, but only for criminals and rich people? No thanks.

by daenz 4y ago

Guns, but only for criminals and rich people? No thanks.

Nextgrid 4y ago

Better than having guns for criminals, rich people and unhinged teenagers looking to shoot their school.

daenz 4y ago
The largest demographic (hundreds of millions of people), which you seem to have left out, is law abiding citizens looking to protect themselves and their families.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Protect themselves from what? Unhinged people with guns? Seems like recursion. People in other countries where guns are illegal seem to do just fine without having to protect themselves using their own firearms.
  - daenz 4y ago
    People in unarmed countries get stabbed/beaten/shot if their attacker is larger/stronger/younger than them. Here, older/weaker people have a chance to protect their lives. Firearms are frequently used defensively to stop attacks. Here's a couple from the past 2 weeks: https://abc7.com/moreno-valley-intruder-shot-homeowner-investigation/12004046/ https://abc7.com/moreno-valley-intruder-shot-homeowner-inves... https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-at-clearwater-home-police-say/ https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-a...
    - mullingitover 4y ago
      Anecdotal evidence is great for appeals to emotion, but the data tells a different story[1]. [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
      - daenz 4y ago
        I can show you hundreds of news stories of defensive gun use from the past 6 months, or you can be satisfied with a single study, which also claims: >women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault I don't know why anyone would choose to believe something that is so easily falsifiable with a 2 minute google search[0] 0. https://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-killed-by-victim/ https://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-kil...
        mullingitover 4y ago
        As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. It's great that you read the page I cited, but you cherry picked your quote. Here's the full section: > 11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions > Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss. > This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths. > Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27. Emphasis added.
        daenz 4y ago
        >(in more than 300 cases) Yes, this shows the bias of the authors. They come to a conclusion that is only supported by undersampled data, yet their language is strongly biased towards that specific conclusion ("women never..."). Unbiased language would not read that way. I suspect the language flies under your radar because you seem to agree with the conclusions. But its a huge red flag that the authors are not approaching the subject in good faith. Studies on DGU is an oft-treaded subject. I've looked at quite a bit of data, and if you have also, you would also know how and why it is so difficult to compile reliable data on the subject. Which is why I find it nearly futile to throw studies at each other.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >Protect themselves from what? Bears, wolves, mountain lions, elk, moose, bison are some of the things.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >Protect themselves from what? Unhinged people with guns? Seems like recursion. Protect themselves from larger people with other weapons. Protect themselves from unarmed people who want to kill them. Protect themselves from crazy guy who made home-made shotgun with home-made gunpowder and home-made projectiles. Protect themselves from cartel members who smuggle weapons channeled by foreign militaries. Protect themselves from wild animals, including grizzly bears that inhabit the US and Polar bears that inhabit places like Svalbard. Protect themselves from rabid or poorly trained aggressive domestic animals, such as the many dogs that attack and even kill children annually.
    - daenz 4y ago
      I've never seen anyone argue against this that wasn't essentially, "oh well, deal with it I guess." The police can't make it in time, and have no duty to protect you. Any other weapon that doesn't provide distance and lethal force is a liability. So what is the expectation for innocent victims, especially the smaller or weaker ones? Just get beaten/killed? I've never seen a real answer to this.
      - mullingitover 4y ago
        > So what is the expectation for innocent victims, especially the smaller or weaker ones? Just get beaten/killed? I've never seen a real answer to this. Pepper spray is pretty great. You don't have to worry about killing someone, so you can use it with a lot less hesitation. I've been in a situation where I was in physical danger, but from someone I didn't want to kill, and pepper spray immediately ended the danger for me and allowed me to get away. A gun would not have done that because I wouldn't have used the gun.
        daenz 4y ago
        I agree there are situations where nonlethal force is appropriate, and it sounds like you were in one of those situations. There are other situations where someone wants to and is trying to kill you, and pepper spray does not incapacitate that kind of aggression reliably. It also does not work well on drunk people or people with a high pain threshold tolerance.