4 ms·

I believe you're committing the no-true-scotsman rhetorical fallacy. Proper firearm practices don't protect you from deliberate self-harm, nor does it protect

I believe you're committing the no-true-scotsman rhetorical fallacy. Proper firearm practices don't protect you from deliberate self-harm, nor does it protect the other people living in the space from a resident motivated to do them harm. Following proper safe firearm practices protects you and your family from negligent discharge and from someone turning your firearms against you. But it does absolutely nothing to protect you from yourself, nor protect your friends/family from you. You know who doesn't shoot their friends/family/self whilst in the grip of a severe, acute mental health episode? A person who doesn't have easy access to guns. About 42% of adults in the US live in a household with guns[0]. If your claim is that the statistics [that show living in a household with guns is more dangerous than not] are easily mitigated via good practices, then a HUGE number of people must not be following those practices. Why else would the statistics be so clear on that point? Either a large proportion of people are not following those practices, in which case some other mitigation is necessary, or those practices are not as effective as you claim, in which case some other mitigation is necessary. I bring this up because my wife and I have discussed at length whether or not to conveniently locate our firearms for self-defense, and concluded that, for now at least, adequately keeping our kids safe from using the guns without supervision basically precludes using the firearm for self-defense (that old "when seconds count..." saw), to the extent that we don't keep our firearms in our home. 0. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts...

buttercraft 3y ago
I would say that, yes, a HUGE number of gun owners fail basic gun safety. In my area, you do not have to demonstrate knowledge of firearms to own one. I've seen a lot of idiots on the range, and that's why I only go shooting with people I know and trust.
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  at my local range I have seen the following : - A man teaching his girlfriend to shoot a tech nine. She was holding it with her finger over the barrel and was moments away from firing before my dad notice and stopped her - A roughly 12 year old jumping out of a van, pulling a pistol directly from his waistband, and firing downrange without ever taking a safety off. Also most gun owners I know just keep their guns like, on a shelf somewhere, with the bullets either in the gun or nearby. So yeah there are a lot of people that don't use any brain cells whatsoever when handling firearms. Get your youtube algorithm to start serving you shorts from the hip-hop enthusiast gun-modification community, you'll see some real idiocy in short order.
DontchaKnowit 3y ago
No it is not a no-true-scotsman fallacy. Here is another example. On average, retail investors lose money. However, a highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will make money. In fact there is always some subset of retail investors that will always make money. But on average, retail loses money. Because on average retail loses money does not imply that any given retail investor is more likely to lose money than to make money. Also it is very obvious that a huge portion of people that own guns do not adhere to strict gun safety principles, so not sure what argument you are trying to make there.
- petsfed 3y ago
  So, no true highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will lose money? The point I'm making is that good, safe gun ownership and gun storage practices only mitigate very specific parts (and not even the largest parts) of the statistical observation that people who live in a home with guns are considerably more likely to be killed or injured by gun violence. A person can very carefully follow the basic rules of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, don't point it at something you're not prepared to shoot, etc) and still use it on themself. Or their kids. Or their spouse. Or their roommate. These are not mutually exclusive. That person can very conscientiously store their (unloaded) firearm in an appropriate locked cabinet, with trigger locks, away from their ammunition, and still do any of those things. So I reject completely your initial claim that being a "safe" gun owner makes you somehow an exception to the observed phenomenon.
  - ComplexSystems 3y ago
    > So, no true highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will lose money? > The point I'm making is that good, safe gun ownership and gun storage practices only mitigate very specific parts (and not even the largest parts) of the statistical observation that people who live in a home with guns are considerably more likely to be killed or injured by gun violence. A person can very carefully follow the basic rules of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, don't point it at something you're not prepared to shoot, etc) and still use it on themself. Or their kids. Or their spouse. Or their roommate. These are not mutually exclusive. That person can very conscientiously store their (unloaded) firearm in an appropriate locked cabinet, with trigger locks, away from their ammunition, and still do any of those things. So I reject completely your initial claim that being a "safe" gun owner makes you somehow an exception to the observed phenomenon. The point being made is simply one of statistics. "On average," retail investors will lose money. This "average" is taken across the entire population of investors. There are subpopulations of investors, however, who tend to be better educated, motivated and so on, and who do not lose money "on average." It isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.

buttercraft 3y ago

I would say that, yes, a HUGE number of gun owners fail basic gun safety. In my area, you do not have to demonstrate knowledge of firearms to own one. I've seen a lot of idiots on the range, and that's why I only go shooting with people I know and trust.

DontchaKnowit 3y ago
at my local range I have seen the following : - A man teaching his girlfriend to shoot a tech nine. She was holding it with her finger over the barrel and was moments away from firing before my dad notice and stopped her - A roughly 12 year old jumping out of a van, pulling a pistol directly from his waistband, and firing downrange without ever taking a safety off. Also most gun owners I know just keep their guns like, on a shelf somewhere, with the bullets either in the gun or nearby. So yeah there are a lot of people that don't use any brain cells whatsoever when handling firearms. Get your youtube algorithm to start serving you shorts from the hip-hop enthusiast gun-modification community, you'll see some real idiocy in short order.

DontchaKnowit 3y ago

No it is not a no-true-scotsman fallacy. Here is another example. On average, retail investors lose money. However, a highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will make money. In fact there is always some subset of retail investors that will always make money. But on average, retail loses money. Because on average retail loses money does not imply that any given retail investor is more likely to lose money than to make money. Also it is very obvious that a huge portion of people that own guns do not adhere to strict gun safety principles, so not sure what argument you are trying to make there.

petsfed 3y ago
So, no true highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will lose money? The point I'm making is that good, safe gun ownership and gun storage practices only mitigate very specific parts (and not even the largest parts) of the statistical observation that people who live in a home with guns are considerably more likely to be killed or injured by gun violence. A person can very carefully follow the basic rules of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, don't point it at something you're not prepared to shoot, etc) and still use it on themself. Or their kids. Or their spouse. Or their roommate. These are not mutually exclusive. That person can very conscientiously store their (unloaded) firearm in an appropriate locked cabinet, with trigger locks, away from their ammunition, and still do any of those things. So I reject completely your initial claim that being a "safe" gun owner makes you somehow an exception to the observed phenomenon.
- ComplexSystems 3y ago
  > So, no true highly intelligent, highly motivated, skilled retail investor will lose money? > The point I'm making is that good, safe gun ownership and gun storage practices only mitigate very specific parts (and not even the largest parts) of the statistical observation that people who live in a home with guns are considerably more likely to be killed or injured by gun violence. A person can very carefully follow the basic rules of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, don't point it at something you're not prepared to shoot, etc) and still use it on themself. Or their kids. Or their spouse. Or their roommate. These are not mutually exclusive. That person can very conscientiously store their (unloaded) firearm in an appropriate locked cabinet, with trigger locks, away from their ammunition, and still do any of those things. So I reject completely your initial claim that being a "safe" gun owner makes you somehow an exception to the observed phenomenon. The point being made is simply one of statistics. "On average," retail investors will lose money. This "average" is taken across the entire population of investors. There are subpopulations of investors, however, who tend to be better educated, motivated and so on, and who do not lose money "on average." It isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.