3 ms·

The bad guy with a gun has already shot someone. The good guy can put an end to the violence in some cases, but almost never before the bad guy has harmed someo

The bad guy with a gun has already shot someone. The good guy can put an end to the violence in some cases, but almost never before the bad guy has harmed someone. In societies where guns aren't ubiquitous it's the bad guy with a knife or a brick versus the good guy with a lawn chair. It's still the case that the bad guy can cause some damage before he's stopped, but it isn't as much damage, and it's less likely, because you can run away from a knife and dodge a brick.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
I question your good-faith intentions here. > The bad guy with a gun has already shot someone. So here you start from the assumption that the person was shot and killed. Shooters miss; they may also miss vital points. > you can run away from a knife and dodge a brick. Why not start from the assumption that the person was stabbed or hit on the head with a brick?
- DFHippie 4y ago
  Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them. If you succeed, the damage is much greater in the former case than the latter. This isn't just speculation. This is borne out by evidence. In the UK there is a lot of knife violence. It is much less lethal than our gun violence. This isn't because UK thugs are less competent. It is because it requires less competence to injure someone grievously with a gun. I don't see how this has any bearing on anything.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    > Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them At point blank it’s easy. Once it’s at range and for pistols it’s a matter of practice. It’s why rifles tend be used by soldiers; it’s easier to aim with, train, and be accurate with. It’s a matter of geometry. It’s also highly conspicuous (unlike handguns). Okay. Say you’re injured and not dead: If size isn’t a deterrent, then wouldn’t an armed good samaritan be able to do more to help than an unarmed? What if the individual goes after more victims? But whether a person is being stabbed and bleeding to death, knocked out, or shot incapacitated: They’re unable to run, nevermind help. At that point they’re at the mercy of the attacker and the people around them. What I’ll concede is that a gun also enables a lot of individuals to be an attacker: Equalizing goes both ways. I’ll also concede that in the ideal world we’d have phasers to stun; but as far as I know even beanbag guns and similar are not meant for civilian use. I wish it weren’t this way, but even stun guns and tasers are illegal in places like NYC.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    Also, fatality rate: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170622171421.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170622171421.h... Approximately 25%.

nobodyandproud 4y ago

I question your good-faith intentions here. > The bad guy with a gun has already shot someone. So here you start from the assumption that the person was shot and killed. Shooters miss; they may also miss vital points. > you can run away from a knife and dodge a brick. Why not start from the assumption that the person was stabbed or hit on the head with a brick?

DFHippie 4y ago
Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them. If you succeed, the damage is much greater in the former case than the latter. This isn't just speculation. This is borne out by evidence. In the UK there is a lot of knife violence. It is much less lethal than our gun violence. This isn't because UK thugs are less competent. It is because it requires less competence to injure someone grievously with a gun. I don't see how this has any bearing on anything.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  > Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them At point blank it’s easy. Once it’s at range and for pistols it’s a matter of practice. It’s why rifles tend be used by soldiers; it’s easier to aim with, train, and be accurate with. It’s a matter of geometry. It’s also highly conspicuous (unlike handguns). Okay. Say you’re injured and not dead: If size isn’t a deterrent, then wouldn’t an armed good samaritan be able to do more to help than an unarmed? What if the individual goes after more victims? But whether a person is being stabbed and bleeding to death, knocked out, or shot incapacitated: They’re unable to run, nevermind help. At that point they’re at the mercy of the attacker and the people around them. What I’ll concede is that a gun also enables a lot of individuals to be an attacker: Equalizing goes both ways. I’ll also concede that in the ideal world we’d have phasers to stun; but as far as I know even beanbag guns and similar are not meant for civilian use. I wish it weren’t this way, but even stun guns and tasers are illegal in places like NYC.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Also, fatality rate: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170622171421.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170622171421.h... Approximately 25%.