4 ms·

...and guns to defend.

by jMyles 12y ago

01Michael10 12y ago
Guns are NOT defensive weapons... You could be standing in the Starbucks line with any weapon of your choosing and I can just walk up to you and pull out a pistol and splatter your brains across the counter. No problem... EDIT - Why is my off-topic comment with an argument being down-voted in a reply to a off-topic statement with no argument is not? There must be a lot of gun lovers on Hacker News...
- zobzu 12y ago
  Because your argument makes no sense at all to the majority (me included). A tool is a tool. Its how you use it that makes it good or bad. I tend to believe that people who see a tool as one that can only be used in one direction, to be the ones most likely to use it in that direction.
  - hyperbovine 12y ago
    A tool that is designed to kill people is different from a garden trowel. Give me a break.
  - 01Michael10 12y ago
    Did your comment have something to do with what I posted? I was pointing out guns (yes, they are tools) are not good defensive weapons (the wrong tool).
    - zobzu 12y ago
      that's your opinion. they're used as defensive weapons everywhere. your opinion is that its not effective.
      - 01Michael10 12y ago
        Really? Just you saying they are defensive weapons makes it so? You remember that news story from a couple of years ago in Seattle (I think)... Four professionally trained and armed policemen sitting at a coffee shop and one person walks up and shoots them all dead? Their guns were useless... If we were living in movie world I would say guns are great defensive weapons because the good guys always know the bad guys are coming and have their guns drawn (or have super human reaction and aim). In real life? Not so much...
        zobzu 12y ago
        Yes. If you own a gun it doesn't mean that you're planning to shot anyone with it or that it's bound to happen. If you say you use it as a defense weapon and you actually do that (which is what a lot of gun owners in the USA say) then its a defensive weapon. It's not about shooting back with lightning fast reflexes. It's dissuasion, or sometimes against wild life too. It also doesn't mean its going to save you every time either. Nothing works every single time, we'd know by now. Of course its also used to kill. For homicides, what not. Heck flower pots are used for homicides too. The point is that the decision is in the hands of the human behind the trigger, if guns didn't exist, they'd use swords. If sword's didn't exist, they'd use blunts. and so on.
        01Michael10 12y ago
        Once again your comment has nothing to do with what I am talking about... I am not making a moral judgment about guns. I am merely stating they are not defensive weapons as they not designed for that... Swords? Well, if you had a sword and I had a sword it is possible for me to block your strikes with my sword. Guns? No gun blocks bullets... Walking around with a gun offers one no protection (unless you have it drawn and ready to fire at all times then maybe) but a false sense of security as my real life examples illustrated. Now, if you want to shot someone dead, guns (I would not suggest flower pots) do work really well for that...
- tempestn 12y ago
  I believe in restrictive gun laws; sometimes people have psychotic breaks for instance, and it's preferable there not be a gun handy when they do. That said, guns absolutely can be used to defend. The most obvious example is that police officers carry guns to defend the general public from criminals (who may also have guns). Yes, you could say the act of firing a gun is offensive, but the threat of the weapon can still be used defensively, and even shooting someone could be considered defensive if it is done to save the lives of others.
- jMyles 12y ago
  You are being downvoted because people disagree. I'm not sure how I feel about the downvote button being used this way, but I also disagree with you. I wish that instead of downvoting, people will just explain their positions. For my part: Personally owned firearms are used for defense far more often than for aggression. The easiest scenario to picture is the one in which a sidearm is merely revealed (rather than brandished or fired) in order to deter an attacker. The vast majority of successful uses of guns for personal protection do not involve discharge. I think it's reasonable to call these purely "defensive" uses. I agree that, on its face, discharging a firearm with the intent to kill or injure another person is offensive. However, this is an over-simplification of the (largely positive, in my experience) role that firearms play in our society. A sufficient distribution of concealed carry permits creates (or at least can create) a sort of herd immunity against certain types of violent crime. Volunteer open carry provides an example of how protective force might be delegated in a community without the need for a police force. A culture of firearms safety and training, along with widespread ownership of effective tactical arms, can cause an entity, even a state actor, to opt against brute-force repression of a community. If you want a crash course in firearm culture amidst unending dedication to peace and compassion, check out Porcupine Festival. (And for what it's worth, there are also very intense tech talks and hacking sessions that will blow your mind).
  - mtbcoder 12y ago
    Interesting points, do you have any sources though?
    - jMyles 12y ago
      I don't, at least at the moment. Of the empirical claims I've made, I'm most interested in whether self-defense encounters that merely involve a "reveal" are typically effective and what their distribution is. I didn't mean, though, to be empirical for the most part; I was just trying to jog the imagination about what "purely defensive" uses of firearms might look like.
  - 01Michael10 12y ago
    Well, I would have to disagree with just about everything you wrote... >The easiest scenario to picture is the one in which a sidearm is merely revealed (rather than brandished or fired) in order to deter an attacker. Huh? Where do you live where this scenario ever happens? I am 45 and lived in a major city half my life and not really in the best part of town. I have never had the need to reveal a weapon to a would be attacker. If someone is going to mug me their weapon will be already pointed at me and revealing any weapon I have is just going to get me shot. I think maybe you watch to much TV... >A sufficient distribution of concealed carry permits creates (or at least can create) a sort of herd immunity against certain types of violent crime. Source? I just looked at murder rates for NY (where I live) with a low concealed carry permits ratio to Texas which has a high concealed carry permits. Gee, Texas has a higher murder rate... >Volunteer open carry provides an example of how protective force might be delegated in a community without the need for a police force. Ok, I am not a huge fan of police forces but I am also not a huge fan of more random people walking around with guns. The majority of people are to violent, mentally unstable, to just plain to dumb to be carrying weapons around. We already try the wild west thing and it didn't work out...
pluma 12y ago
I think it's disingenuous to classify guns as defensive weapons even if they can be "used in defense". Defensive weapons are armour, masks, shields or even boots with steel-capped toes. Shields and boots can actually be used as offensive weapons (like anonymity according to the GP) but are primarily defensive. They are primarily intended to deflect or mitigate harm. Guns, knives, batons and even less-than-lethal weapons like pepperspray, water cannons, tear gas and tasers are offensive weapons. They are primarily intended to inflict (permanent or temporary) harm. The defensive capabilities of offensive weapons consist of displaying them for intimidation (i.e. a threat to inflict harm, which is obviously an offensive act) and their use to inflict harm against an aggressor in self-defense (which is again about inflicting harm and therefore offensive). Their purely defensive capabilities are trivial (e.g. using a rifle stock to parry an attack in hand-to-hand combat) and at best secondary to their offensive ones. Also note that every offensive weapon can be used to intimidate or in self-defense. A knife may not be very useful for intimidation in a gun fight and a megaton nuclear device may not be very useful for personal self-defense (unless you consider pre-emptive strikes an act of self-defense and even then you want some distance between you and the "aggressor"), so they could all be classified as defensive if we were to use the muddier definition you seem to suggest (i.e. defensive weapon = a weapon that can be used defensively). Whether defensive weapons are (or should be) considered weapons at all is a matter of jurisdiction (I only know about the situation in Germany) but generally the idea is that defensive weapons are classified as weapons because they're only useful in a fight and you wouldn't use them if you weren't intending to get involved in a fight (this is why they may be illegal to carry/wear in a demonstration, for example). This distinction may be a cultural thing, though. By this definition a "personal defense weapon" or even a self-defense weapon like a taser or pepper spray is actually an offensive weapon rather than a defensive one. This certainly works with the anonymity analogy (concealing your identity is not in itself a means to inflict harm, although it can aid in the success of doing so or in avoiding punishment), so I think this is what the GP had in mind.
1ris 12y ago
All this infighting is certainly not helping civil rights. I'm not amercian, but a EFF-ACLU-NRA-SPLC-AI would be a great thing. Right now the civil rights and their proponents are played off against each other, and the rest of the world is suffering from this, too.
- jMyles 12y ago
  Such an important step for us to take. Let's add SSDP as well. I've never understood how enthusiasts about some rights can be so dismissive of others. Poignant critique is one thing, but there's a lot of, as I say, simple dismissism (?) going on. Once again, I have to suggest Porcupine Festival. It's the only place I've seen that has such incredible unity on these fronts.

...and guns to defend.

by jMyles 12y ago

...and guns to defend.

Guns are NOT defensive weapons... You could be standing in the Starbucks line with any weapon of your choosing and I can just walk up to you and pull out a pistol and splatter your brains across the counter. No problem... EDIT - Why is my off-topic comment with an argument being down-voted in a reply to a off-topic statement with no argument is not? There must be a lot of gun lovers on Hacker News...

zobzu 12y ago
Because your argument makes no sense at all to the majority (me included). A tool is a tool. Its how you use it that makes it good or bad. I tend to believe that people who see a tool as one that can only be used in one direction, to be the ones most likely to use it in that direction.
- hyperbovine 12y ago
  A tool that is designed to kill people is different from a garden trowel. Give me a break.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  Did your comment have something to do with what I posted? I was pointing out guns (yes, they are tools) are not good defensive weapons (the wrong tool).
  - zobzu 12y ago
    that's your opinion. they're used as defensive weapons everywhere. your opinion is that its not effective.
    - 01Michael10 12y ago
      Really? Just you saying they are defensive weapons makes it so? You remember that news story from a couple of years ago in Seattle (I think)... Four professionally trained and armed policemen sitting at a coffee shop and one person walks up and shoots them all dead? Their guns were useless... If we were living in movie world I would say guns are great defensive weapons because the good guys always know the bad guys are coming and have their guns drawn (or have super human reaction and aim). In real life? Not so much...
      - zobzu 12y ago
        Yes. If you own a gun it doesn't mean that you're planning to shot anyone with it or that it's bound to happen. If you say you use it as a defense weapon and you actually do that (which is what a lot of gun owners in the USA say) then its a defensive weapon. It's not about shooting back with lightning fast reflexes. It's dissuasion, or sometimes against wild life too. It also doesn't mean its going to save you every time either. Nothing works every single time, we'd know by now. Of course its also used to kill. For homicides, what not. Heck flower pots are used for homicides too. The point is that the decision is in the hands of the human behind the trigger, if guns didn't exist, they'd use swords. If sword's didn't exist, they'd use blunts. and so on.
        01Michael10 12y ago
        Once again your comment has nothing to do with what I am talking about... I am not making a moral judgment about guns. I am merely stating they are not defensive weapons as they not designed for that... Swords? Well, if you had a sword and I had a sword it is possible for me to block your strikes with my sword. Guns? No gun blocks bullets... Walking around with a gun offers one no protection (unless you have it drawn and ready to fire at all times then maybe) but a false sense of security as my real life examples illustrated. Now, if you want to shot someone dead, guns (I would not suggest flower pots) do work really well for that...
tempestn 12y ago
I believe in restrictive gun laws; sometimes people have psychotic breaks for instance, and it's preferable there not be a gun handy when they do. That said, guns absolutely can be used to defend. The most obvious example is that police officers carry guns to defend the general public from criminals (who may also have guns). Yes, you could say the act of firing a gun is offensive, but the threat of the weapon can still be used defensively, and even shooting someone could be considered defensive if it is done to save the lives of others.
jMyles 12y ago
You are being downvoted because people disagree. I'm not sure how I feel about the downvote button being used this way, but I also disagree with you. I wish that instead of downvoting, people will just explain their positions. For my part: Personally owned firearms are used for defense far more often than for aggression. The easiest scenario to picture is the one in which a sidearm is merely revealed (rather than brandished or fired) in order to deter an attacker. The vast majority of successful uses of guns for personal protection do not involve discharge. I think it's reasonable to call these purely "defensive" uses. I agree that, on its face, discharging a firearm with the intent to kill or injure another person is offensive. However, this is an over-simplification of the (largely positive, in my experience) role that firearms play in our society. A sufficient distribution of concealed carry permits creates (or at least can create) a sort of herd immunity against certain types of violent crime. Volunteer open carry provides an example of how protective force might be delegated in a community without the need for a police force. A culture of firearms safety and training, along with widespread ownership of effective tactical arms, can cause an entity, even a state actor, to opt against brute-force repression of a community. If you want a crash course in firearm culture amidst unending dedication to peace and compassion, check out Porcupine Festival. (And for what it's worth, there are also very intense tech talks and hacking sessions that will blow your mind).
- mtbcoder 12y ago
  Interesting points, do you have any sources though?
  - jMyles 12y ago
    I don't, at least at the moment. Of the empirical claims I've made, I'm most interested in whether self-defense encounters that merely involve a "reveal" are typically effective and what their distribution is. I didn't mean, though, to be empirical for the most part; I was just trying to jog the imagination about what "purely defensive" uses of firearms might look like.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  Well, I would have to disagree with just about everything you wrote... >The easiest scenario to picture is the one in which a sidearm is merely revealed (rather than brandished or fired) in order to deter an attacker. Huh? Where do you live where this scenario ever happens? I am 45 and lived in a major city half my life and not really in the best part of town. I have never had the need to reveal a weapon to a would be attacker. If someone is going to mug me their weapon will be already pointed at me and revealing any weapon I have is just going to get me shot. I think maybe you watch to much TV... >A sufficient distribution of concealed carry permits creates (or at least can create) a sort of herd immunity against certain types of violent crime. Source? I just looked at murder rates for NY (where I live) with a low concealed carry permits ratio to Texas which has a high concealed carry permits. Gee, Texas has a higher murder rate... >Volunteer open carry provides an example of how protective force might be delegated in a community without the need for a police force. Ok, I am not a huge fan of police forces but I am also not a huge fan of more random people walking around with guns. The majority of people are to violent, mentally unstable, to just plain to dumb to be carrying weapons around. We already try the wild west thing and it didn't work out...

pluma 12y ago

I think it's disingenuous to classify guns as defensive weapons even if they can be "used in defense". Defensive weapons are armour, masks, shields or even boots with steel-capped toes. Shields and boots can actually be used as offensive weapons (like anonymity according to the GP) but are primarily defensive. They are primarily intended to deflect or mitigate harm. Guns, knives, batons and even less-than-lethal weapons like pepperspray, water cannons, tear gas and tasers are offensive weapons. They are primarily intended to inflict (permanent or temporary) harm. The defensive capabilities of offensive weapons consist of displaying them for intimidation (i.e. a threat to inflict harm, which is obviously an offensive act) and their use to inflict harm against an aggressor in self-defense (which is again about inflicting harm and therefore offensive). Their purely defensive capabilities are trivial (e.g. using a rifle stock to parry an attack in hand-to-hand combat) and at best secondary to their offensive ones. Also note that every offensive weapon can be used to intimidate or in self-defense. A knife may not be very useful for intimidation in a gun fight and a megaton nuclear device may not be very useful for personal self-defense (unless you consider pre-emptive strikes an act of self-defense and even then you want some distance between you and the "aggressor"), so they could all be classified as defensive if we were to use the muddier definition you seem to suggest (i.e. defensive weapon = a weapon that can be used defensively). Whether defensive weapons are (or should be) considered weapons at all is a matter of jurisdiction (I only know about the situation in Germany) but generally the idea is that defensive weapons are classified as weapons because they're only useful in a fight and you wouldn't use them if you weren't intending to get involved in a fight (this is why they may be illegal to carry/wear in a demonstration, for example). This distinction may be a cultural thing, though. By this definition a "personal defense weapon" or even a self-defense weapon like a taser or pepper spray is actually an offensive weapon rather than a defensive one. This certainly works with the anonymity analogy (concealing your identity is not in itself a means to inflict harm, although it can aid in the success of doing so or in avoiding punishment), so I think this is what the GP had in mind.

1ris 12y ago

All this infighting is certainly not helping civil rights. I'm not amercian, but a EFF-ACLU-NRA-SPLC-AI would be a great thing. Right now the civil rights and their proponents are played off against each other, and the rest of the world is suffering from this, too.

jMyles 12y ago
Such an important step for us to take. Let's add SSDP as well. I've never understood how enthusiasts about some rights can be so dismissive of others. Poignant critique is one thing, but there's a lot of, as I say, simple dismissism (?) going on. Once again, I have to suggest Porcupine Festival. It's the only place I've seen that has such incredible unity on these fronts.