4 ms·

Yes, because more bullets flying in a dark room full of panicked civilians would help the situation.

mindcrime 12y ago
It might, it might not. There's no way to know in advance, so I'd say your comment here is pretty much content-free. What I want is the option to make that call, if/when an actual situation develops where it might be justified - based on the actual situation "on the ground"... not hypotheticals.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Sure but giving you the option to make that call has an effect on others. Giving you that option may increase my chance of death in that situation. How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives. I would guess almost none.
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives Of the civilian population at large? Yeah, almost none, percentage-wise. But of the civilian population who choose to carry and even more the civilian population who choose to get a CCW permit I'd say it's "a very high percentage". I don't know if you are a gun owner / enthusiast or not, or if you hang out with "gun people" or not, but my experience has been that the kind of people who carry regularly, go to the trouble of getting a CCW permit, etc., take shooting and training pretty seriously. There are plenty of civilians who shoot competitively and are absolutely better trained than (many|most) cops.
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      I live in a country where gun ownership isn't a thing and I don't think citizens in my country need guns. In the US however I don't disagree with it completely mainly due to the fact that so many people already have them (there is no way to get them back) and it seems like many more criminals in the US are armed with guns. I think that I would be on your side completely if, to get that permit, you had to take a yearly training course to ensure you are going to act rationally and safely in an event like a movie theatre shooting. It takes someone with a lot of training to act rationally in a deadly situation and to make the correct call (i.e. using my weapon will help the situation or using my weapon will make things worse and even though I have it I should not use it today). It's good to be able to shoot accurately but being able to make that call is just as important.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - prawn 12y ago
        I think criminals in the US tend to have guns because the population in general is more likely to be armed. Where I live, I don't know anyone who owns a gun and don't expect to encounter a criminal armed with a gun in my lifetime.
      - mindcrime 12y ago
        I live in a country where gun ownership isn't a thing and I don't think citizens in my country need guns. Aaah, there are definitely some serious cultural differences at play here then. I grew up in a country where my grandfather bought me my first gun before I was even born. And I've been shooting guns (rifles, pistols, etc.) since I was about 9 years old. Here in the US, there is a large population of people who taking shooting very seriously. There are competitive shooting events run through obstacle courses and using pop-up targets, similar to the things you may have seen on television for police training. Yeah, people here do that kind of stuff for fun. There are magazines, books, videos, training courses, etc. dedicated to tactical shooting, self-defense, etc. Of course none of this is required (by and large, but see below) and not everybody goes to this extreme. But this is what I mean by "gun people". And in my experience here, the kind of people who make the choice to carry in public, tend to come from that population. So yeah, I by and large trust those people to do the right thing in a scary situation. I would be on your side completely if, to get that permit, you had to take a yearly training course to ensure you are going to act rationally and safely in an event like a movie theatre shooting. FWIW, every US state sets its own standards. Not all states even require a permit for pistols (concealed or otherwise). But in my state (NC), if I want to get a concealed carry permit, I do actually have to attend a training course which includes covering the legalities of carrying a firearm and using deadly force, a firearms safety component, and a visit to the gun range where I would have to certify as proficient with my weapon. There is no yearly recertification requirement however, as best as I can recall.
MrZongle2 12y ago
Would you prefer the alternative: a dark room full of defenseless victims? Or perhaps you have another option, say an increased movie ticket price and on-site, armed security?
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Take a look at my discussion with mindcrime for more details on my stance.
- vec 12y ago
  > Would you prefer the alternative: a dark room full of defenseless victims? ...yes? Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that arming victims does in fact reduce or eliminate the ability of a mass shooter to inflict casualties. The only way to ensure that someone is carrying a concealed weapon in whichever screening is hypothetically attacked is to ensure that someone is carrying a concealed weapon in most if not all screenings. That's a lot of handguns. The vast majority of these weapons will be used responsibly, but some small fraction of them will be used in crimes of passion or suicides that would not have happened but for the easy availability of a deadly weapon. Some other tiny fraction of them will injure or kill someone accidentally. Mass shootings and terrorist attacks, while incredibly tragic, are incredibly rare. They also rarely have casualty counts above the low double digits. Meanwhile firearm accidents kill hundreds of people every year, and suicide and homicide claim tens of thousands. Arming ourselves to a level that can prevent black swan events is optimizing for the wrong case and will almost certainly lead to more loss of life than it prevents.
  - Meekro 12y ago
    Letting violent assholes do what they want usually results in less total harm than fighting back does. To take an extreme example, capitulating to Germany would have resulted in less loss of life than World War 2 did. But is that the kind of people we want to be? I think every person has a moral right to turn to their attacker and say "No. If I'm going down, then I'm going to take a bitch with me."
    - 12y ago

It might, it might not. There's no way to know in advance, so I'd say your comment here is pretty much content-free. What I want is the option to make that call, if/when an actual situation develops where it might be justified - based on the actual situation "on the ground"... not hypotheticals.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Sure but giving you the option to make that call has an effect on others. Giving you that option may increase my chance of death in that situation. How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives. I would guess almost none.
- mindcrime 12y ago
  How many civilians (i.e. people with no training/little training in firearms, tactics, life and death situations) are going to be able to assess that situation, make the correct call, and save lives Of the civilian population at large? Yeah, almost none, percentage-wise. But of the civilian population who choose to carry and even more the civilian population who choose to get a CCW permit I'd say it's "a very high percentage". I don't know if you are a gun owner / enthusiast or not, or if you hang out with "gun people" or not, but my experience has been that the kind of people who carry regularly, go to the trouble of getting a CCW permit, etc., take shooting and training pretty seriously. There are plenty of civilians who shoot competitively and are absolutely better trained than (many|most) cops.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    I live in a country where gun ownership isn't a thing and I don't think citizens in my country need guns. In the US however I don't disagree with it completely mainly due to the fact that so many people already have them (there is no way to get them back) and it seems like many more criminals in the US are armed with guns. I think that I would be on your side completely if, to get that permit, you had to take a yearly training course to ensure you are going to act rationally and safely in an event like a movie theatre shooting. It takes someone with a lot of training to act rationally in a deadly situation and to make the correct call (i.e. using my weapon will help the situation or using my weapon will make things worse and even though I have it I should not use it today). It's good to be able to shoot accurately but being able to make that call is just as important.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - prawn 12y ago
      I think criminals in the US tend to have guns because the population in general is more likely to be armed. Where I live, I don't know anyone who owns a gun and don't expect to encounter a criminal armed with a gun in my lifetime.
    - mindcrime 12y ago
      I live in a country where gun ownership isn't a thing and I don't think citizens in my country need guns. Aaah, there are definitely some serious cultural differences at play here then. I grew up in a country where my grandfather bought me my first gun before I was even born. And I've been shooting guns (rifles, pistols, etc.) since I was about 9 years old. Here in the US, there is a large population of people who taking shooting very seriously. There are competitive shooting events run through obstacle courses and using pop-up targets, similar to the things you may have seen on television for police training. Yeah, people here do that kind of stuff for fun. There are magazines, books, videos, training courses, etc. dedicated to tactical shooting, self-defense, etc. Of course none of this is required (by and large, but see below) and not everybody goes to this extreme. But this is what I mean by "gun people". And in my experience here, the kind of people who make the choice to carry in public, tend to come from that population. So yeah, I by and large trust those people to do the right thing in a scary situation. I would be on your side completely if, to get that permit, you had to take a yearly training course to ensure you are going to act rationally and safely in an event like a movie theatre shooting. FWIW, every US state sets its own standards. Not all states even require a permit for pistols (concealed or otherwise). But in my state (NC), if I want to get a concealed carry permit, I do actually have to attend a training course which includes covering the legalities of carrying a firearm and using deadly force, a firearms safety component, and a visit to the gun range where I would have to certify as proficient with my weapon. There is no yearly recertification requirement however, as best as I can recall.

MrZongle2 12y ago

Would you prefer the alternative: a dark room full of defenseless victims? Or perhaps you have another option, say an increased movie ticket price and on-site, armed security?

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Take a look at my discussion with mindcrime for more details on my stance.
vec 12y ago
> Would you prefer the alternative: a dark room full of defenseless victims? ...yes? Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that arming victims does in fact reduce or eliminate the ability of a mass shooter to inflict casualties. The only way to ensure that someone is carrying a concealed weapon in whichever screening is hypothetically attacked is to ensure that someone is carrying a concealed weapon in most if not all screenings. That's a lot of handguns. The vast majority of these weapons will be used responsibly, but some small fraction of them will be used in crimes of passion or suicides that would not have happened but for the easy availability of a deadly weapon. Some other tiny fraction of them will injure or kill someone accidentally. Mass shootings and terrorist attacks, while incredibly tragic, are incredibly rare. They also rarely have casualty counts above the low double digits. Meanwhile firearm accidents kill hundreds of people every year, and suicide and homicide claim tens of thousands. Arming ourselves to a level that can prevent black swan events is optimizing for the wrong case and will almost certainly lead to more loss of life than it prevents.
- Meekro 12y ago
  Letting violent assholes do what they want usually results in less total harm than fighting back does. To take an extreme example, capitulating to Germany would have resulted in less loss of life than World War 2 did. But is that the kind of people we want to be? I think every person has a moral right to turn to their attacker and say "No. If I'm going down, then I'm going to take a bitch with me."
  - 12y ago