Man accidentally shoots self (in the butt) in NV theatre

[General Zod]

Why is this something needed in America but that isn't needed in other places?

Are you saying there's no circumstances whatsoever where it's fine for a civilian to carry concealed? Yes or no?

I'm not going to get into this argument but I want to point out that this question is very disingenuous. It has nothing to do with any of this.

Did you bother reading the entire exchange? The question I was replying to completely evaded my first example and dodged my point the first time around.

[General Zod]

"Well I want to carry a loaded gun around JUST IN CASE a knife-wielding psycho assaults me!" sounds like a proper reason to be armed and ready to shoot at all times...unless the odds of actually encountering a homicidal knife-armed psycho are miniscule.

Except that's not what I'm saying? Or are people just ignoring my earlier point about not issuing ccw permits without cause when it's convenient?

[PeZook]

Except that's not what I'm saying? Or are people just ignoring my earlier point about not issuing ccw permits without cause when it's convenient?

I was referring to Beowulf advocating the carry of a loaded gun because it lets you kill a charging knife-wielding psychopath at XYZ range, and Agent Fisher saying "seconds count" to justify the same thing, without even trying to show that having to fast draw and shoot in order to stop a charging psycho is a situation that is at all likely to occur.

Actually, DW has already made the exact same point as me, which I somehow missed. Sorry.

[Beowulf]

I was not advocating carrying a loaded gun. I was advocating that if one were to carry a gun, one should carry it loaded. An unloaded gun is a club until you load it, and if someone's mugging you, you'll likely not have the chance to load it before they do something to hinder your ability to load it.

[PeZook]

I was not advocating carrying a loaded gun. I was advocating that if one were to carry a gun, one should carry it loaded. An unloaded gun is a club until you load it, and if someone's mugging you, you'll likely not have the chance to load it before they do something to hinder your ability to load it.

And are you going to have a chance to draw, fire and kill the mugger, even with a loaded weapon?

If yes, then statistics on guns and crime prevention should logically indicate that, by showing that muggings are prevented/foiled by the presence of a gun.

[Terralthra]

I was not advocating carrying a loaded gun. I was advocating that if one were to carry a gun, one should carry it loaded. An unloaded gun is a club until you load it, and if someone's mugging you, you'll likely not have the chance to load it before they do something to hinder your ability to load it.

And if someone mugs you with a gun themselves, it doesn't matter if yours is loaded or not, because the situation begins with them holding a loaded gun pointed at you. In which case, even if yours is loaded, cocked, and the safety off, the second you go for it, there's a bullet in you.

This is the thing that drives me nuts about gun advocates. You have created some scenario in your head that justifies a loaded gun, because a "psycho wielding a knife could get to you in the time it takes you to load your gun from 21 FEET AWAY!" That's not the most realistic scenario, compared to an asshole who wants your money or car and has a gun himself.

[someone_else]

I don't have a lot against civilians with weapons. I have issues with untrained idiots being issued permits for guns just because owning a gun makes them feel safer.

I mean, you want to carry your weapon? You either demonstrate you use it with skill (and you periodically demonstrate again after a while to show you are still able to use it with skill) or you fuck off. For "skill" I mean doing stuff you will be doing when assaulted by psychos (drawing and shooting fast enough and accurate enough to stop them, determining who is a psycho and who isn't and not shooting on everything that moves while screaming and pissing yourself), not just some safe and unstressing shooting at the range and basic weapon mainteneance that even my granny can do.

If the subject is unable to do it, then the gun cannot be used for self defence effectively by the user (regardless of how good he is at the range), so it makes no sense to give a gun permit for "self-defence".

Here (Italy) the degree of skill required to get a haundgun permit is a bit too fucking low for my tastes. It's expensive as hell and it takes ages, but does not weed out a lot of the idiots that shouldn't really carry guns for their own good.

Getting permits for hunting rifles is a breeze, and that's even worse. I've counted 4 dead dogs and 3 dead cats (clearly owned by someone) slaughtered by hunting rifles in a few dozen km radius around my home. And tons of shit (houses, street signs) was hit by hunting rifle's birdshots.

Is it the same in the US?

[General Zod]

I was not advocating carrying a loaded gun. I was advocating that if one were to carry a gun, one should carry it loaded. An unloaded gun is a club until you load it, and if someone's mugging you, you'll likely not have the chance to load it before they do something to hinder your ability to load it.

And if someone mugs you with a gun themselves, it doesn't matter if yours is loaded or not, because the situation begins with them holding a loaded gun pointed at you. In which case, even if yours is loaded, cocked, and the safety off, the second you go for it, there's a bullet in you.

This is the thing that drives me nuts about gun advocates. You have created some scenario in your head that justifies a loaded gun, because a "psycho wielding a knife could get to you in the time it takes you to load your gun from 21 FEET AWAY!" That's not the most realistic scenario, compared to an asshole who wants your money or car and has a gun himself.

I don't think anyone's advocating that ccw owners should draw their weapon no matter what the situation.

[Darth Wong]

On the last page, I mocked the idea of gun advocates talking about "action-movie scenarios in your head". Since then, all I've seen is ... more action-movie scenarios, despite Pezook also asking people to justify these action-movie scenes. How do we know they are realistic?

PS. Don't answer by positing yet another action-movie scenario. Please try to understand the point being made.

[General Zod]

Here's a few numbers I've dug up.

http://247wallst.com/2012/04/26/america ... -states/5/

Code: Select all

Top 5 most violent states:

1. Louisiana
> Violent crimes (excl. murder) per 100,000: 537.8 (8th most)
> Murders per 100,000: 11.2 (the most)

2. Tennessee
> Violent crimes (excl. murder) per 100,000: 607.7 (4th most)
> Murders per 100,000: 5.6 (12th most)

3. Nevada
> Violent crimes (excl. murder) per 100,000: 654.7 (the most)
> Murders per 100,000: 5.9 (8th most)

4. Florida
> Violent crimes (excl. murder) per 100,000: 537.2 (9th most)
> Murders per 100,000: 5.2 (17th most)

5. Arizona
> Violent crimes (excl. murder) per 100,000: 401.7 (18th most)
> Murders per 100,000: 6.4 (6th most)

and now http://www.datamasher.org/user-data-set ... sue-states

Code: Select all

State                  Percentage of Adults with CCW
South Dakota	7.45
Indiana	6.79
Pennsylvania	6.76
Connecticut	5.23
Washington	5.12
Idaho	4.34
Utah	4.1
Oregon	3.86

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -guns.html

And finally.

Code: Select all

1, Kentucky
Population:4,314,113
NICS background checks per 100,000 residents (Dec. 2008 – May 2010): 134,028

2, Utah
Population:2,784,572
NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 30,315

3, Montana
Population:974,989
NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 25,745

4, Wyoming
Population:544,270
NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 22,827

5, Alaska
Population:698,473
NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 22,273 

It doesn't seem to me there's a clear cut connection between gun ownership and violent crime.

[D.Turtle]

For me the difference would be between carrying a gun loaded (filled magazine in the gun) and carrying it with a round chambered.

Having it loaded means that it is pretty much impossible to accidentally shoot, while adding maybe a second before being able to shoot. Hell, it even has the bonus of being able to pull the gun out and cock it as an additional warning. Carrying a gun with a round chambered just seems far too dangerous for too little benefit for me (in comparison to having it loaded).

[Kamakazie Sith]

For me the difference would be between carrying a gun loaded (filled magazine in the gun) and carrying it with a round chambered.

Having it loaded means that it is pretty much impossible to accidentally shoot, while adding maybe a second before being able to shoot. Hell, it even has the bonus of being able to pull the gun out and cock it as an additional warning. Carrying a gun with a round chambered just seems far too dangerous for too little benefit for me (in comparison to having it loaded).

In what circumstance do you feel brandishing a weapon would be a good idea?

If yes, then statistics on guns and crime prevention should logically indicate that, by showing that muggings are prevented/foiled by the presence of a gun.

National Crime Victimization Survey does not ask respondents if they used a gun to defend themselves. They do this on purpose to reduce the number of false positives.

[DEFENSIVE GUN INFORMATION]
One effort to quantify the benefit of firearm ownership estimates that guns are used for self-defense in the United States as many as 2.5 million times each year. (1)

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) yields a more conservative estimate, approximately 100,000 defensive gun uses (DGU) each year. (2)

[SOURCES]
1 - Kleck G, Bates D. Chapter 7. In: Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001.
Source

2 - Cook P, Ludwig J, Hemenway D. The gun debate's new mythical number: how many defensive uses per year?Journal of policy analysis and management, 1997;16(3):463-9.
Source PDF

[Darth Wong]

2.5 million times a year? Are they seriously suggesting that if the US changed its handgun laws to be more like Canada, there would be 2.5 million more people being raped or murdered or beaten every year?

[D.Turtle]

In what circumstance do you feel brandishing a weapon would be a good idea?

When I feel threatened with bodily harm, but am not yet being attacked?

[Jub]

Why not compare the UK to the US, they're very similar after all. Except that one has a handgun ban, and while violent crime hasn't gone down by as much as might have been hoped for, deaths are simply less common when you, in most cases, need to use a knife or a bat instead of a handgun. Who would have though that when you make guns less common gun crime drops off.

Because you can't just ignore socio-economic conditions that lead to high crime rates?

I'm just so glad that the UK isn't going through a major economic crisis right now on top of having a higher population density than the US. I also choose them because they have comparable violent crime rates. The difference is that a person with a knife or a bat has a harder time killing people than a person with a semi automatic handgun.

Edit: This isn't to say that there aren't differences between the US and the UK. However I chose the UK because it is very similar to the US in many ways.

That's a great anecdote. Now how about digging up some stats and actually answering the question or at least proving that the women needed to have a gun to stop the person from attacking her.

Why bother? You've already said that you don't believe civilians should carry weapons at all. Frankly it's a bit like arguing with a pro-lifer who thinks that abortions should be illegal period with no exceptions.

I'm so glad it took you another full page and another person asking you the same question point blank before you'd answer this question. Shows your integrity there.

I'm sure glad guns and knives haven't been invented yet in Canada, otherwise we'd have to be as armed to the teeth and paranoid as you are.

Now answer me this, if you feel safer and better able to do your job with a concealed handgun carried on you, wouldn't you feel even safer with an assault rifle slung around your neck loaded and ready to go? For that matter what about something like an automatic shotgun?

I would. Cause it'd be nice to be as well armed as what some of the bad guys have in their apartments. I'd also like to have at least three others of my coworkers with me on every single fight or domestic call that I go to.

I can be as paranoid as I want, keeps you alive. Doesn't mean I'm gonna shoot every person who looks at me wrong, just means I'm gonna be extra cautious when I approach that car in the parking lot of the property that's got someone loitering inside it.

EDIT:
Anyway, I'm done with this arguement. I'm not gonna convince you of my need to carry a firearm. And you're not gonna convince me that no civilian should ever have or need a firearm outside of hunting or target shooting. So all I'm accomplishing is raising my post count.

That is rich, you actually advocated a scenario where people walk around with assault rifles around their necks like they do in Somalia. How about you go there while carrying whatever weapon you like and see how safe you feel.

National Crime Victimization Survey does not ask respondents if they used a gun to defend themselves. They do this on purpose to reduce the number of false positives.

[DEFENSIVE GUN INFORMATION]
One effort to quantify the benefit of firearm ownership estimates that guns are used for self-defense in the United States as many as 2.5 million times each year. (1)

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) yields a more conservative estimate, approximately 100,000 defensive gun uses (DGU) each year. (2)

[SOURCES]
1 - Kleck G, Bates D. Chapter 7. In: Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001.
Source

2 - Cook P, Ludwig J, Hemenway D. The gun debate's new mythical number: how many defensive uses per year?Journal of policy analysis and management, 1997;16(3):463-9.
Source PDF

I'm not sure if there will be numbers for this, but how many of those 2.5 million to 100 thousand uses actually stopped the crime before anybody was hurt?

[General Zod]

I'm just so glad that the UK isn't going through a major economic crisis right now on top of having a higher population density than the US. I also choose them because they have comparable violent crime rates. The difference is that a person with a knife or a bat has a harder time killing people than a person with a semi automatic handgun.

So why is it that a state like Alaska or Utah has a much lower violent crime rate than a state like Arizona despite comparable gun ownership?

I'm so glad it took you another full page and another person asking you the same question point blank before you'd answer this question. Shows your integrity there.

You've already said your position is inflexible, so nothing I say is going to change your mind and I don't feel like wasting my time digging up stats for someone that's just going to dismiss them out of hand.

[Kamakazie Sith]

In what circumstance do you feel brandishing a weapon would be a good idea?

When I feel threatened with bodily harm, but am not yet being attacked?

The problem with this logic is you are escalating the situation from bodily harm to deadly force. If you have someone that wants to fight you and you brandish a gun, a physical act that can be interpreted as going for the weapon, you have just given them justification to use deadly force against you. Even though they are the instigator of an illegal act (assault) your response must be reasonable.

[Jub]

I'm just so glad that the UK isn't going through a major economic crisis right now on top of having a higher population density than the US. I also choose them because they have comparable violent crime rates. The difference is that a person with a knife or a bat has a harder time killing people than a person with a semi automatic handgun.

So why is it that a state like Alaska or Utah has a much lower violent crime rate than a state like Arizona despite comparable gun ownership?

Why does any place have more crime than any other? Also, look at the news stories that come from Arizona, they have police playing Gitmo out in the desert and they have an irrational hatred of nonwhite people. So I'm going to go with people in Arizona are nuts.

I'm so glad it took you another full page and another person asking you the same question point blank before you'd answer this question. Shows your integrity there.

You've already said your position is inflexible, so nothing I say is going to change your mind and I don't feel like wasting my time digging up stats for someone that's just going to dismiss them out of hand.

Next time I'm just going to drop debate rules on you and force you to leave the thread if you're going to try to ignore a point just because of who raised it. The point was still relevant to the thread overall.

[General Zod]

Why does any place have more crime than any other? Also, look at the news stories that come from Arizona, they have police playing Gitmo out in the desert and they have an irrational hatred of nonwhite people. So I'm going to go with people in Arizona are nuts.

So you agree that gun ownership doesn't inherently lead to higher violent crime rates?

Next time I'm just going to drop debate rules on you and force you to leave the thread if you're going to try to ignore a point just because of who raised it. The point was still relevant to the thread overall.

You mean like how you ignored my question about whether or not you believed citizens should own guns at all before I repeated myself? Yeah, go get fucked.

[Jub]

Why does any place have more crime than any other? Also, look at the news stories that come from Arizona, they have police playing Gitmo out in the desert and they have an irrational hatred of nonwhite people. So I'm going to go with people in Arizona are nuts.

So you agree that gun ownership doesn't inherently lead to higher violent crime rates?

It might, or it might not. I'd be less inclined to commit a planned and rational crime if my option was a bat or a machete than if I had easy access to a gun. If it's a crime of passion that's spur of the moment then I'll be doing it anyway because it isn't rational. I'll be less deadly without the gun though and that's a win right there.

Next time I'm just going to drop debate rules on you and force you to leave the thread if you're going to try to ignore a point just because of who raised it. The point was still relevant to the thread overall.

You mean like how you ignored my question about whether or not you believed citizens should own guns at all before I repeated myself? Yeah, go get fucked.

I didn't ignore it, I just answered it with another question. I asked why you feel that there is a need for concealed weapons which explained my position on them fairly clearly when taken with everything else I've been saying.

[General Zod]

It might, or it might not. I'd be less inclined to commit a planned and rational crime if my option was a bat or a machete than if I had easy access to a gun. If it's a crime of passion that's spur of the moment then I'll be doing it anyway because it isn't rational. I'll be less deadly without the gun though and that's a win right there.

In case you willfully missed it the first two times, I'm not saying we should be giving out CCWs like candy.

I didn't ignore it, I just answered it with another question. I asked why you feel that there is a need for concealed weapons which explained my position on them fairly clearly when taken with everything else I've been saying.

You've already admitted that you won't accept any answer as valid. So what's the point?

[D.Turtle]

In what circumstance do you feel brandishing a weapon would be a good idea?

When I feel threatened with bodily harm, but am not yet being attacked?

The problem with this logic is you are escalating the situation from bodily harm to deadly force. If you have someone that wants to fight you and you brandish a gun, a physical act that can be interpreted as going for the weapon, you have just given them justification to use deadly force against you. Even though they are the instigator of an illegal act (assault) your response must be reasonable.

Well, the question is, is it only reasonable to pull out a gun if you are going to use it, or is it also reasonable to pull out a gun in order to make the other person take a step back/frighten them/make it clear you aren't a defenceless victim?

Carrying a gun concealed and locked and cocked, and arguing that that is necessary in order to be able to start shooting within a second or two only concentrates on the first situation: You are being directly and immediately being threatened with bodily harm and have to defend yourself. It is however no better than carrying a gun (unloaded, loaded, or cocked) if you want to stop the situation from escalating to that level, by making it clear that you are not defenceless.

In fact, carrying a gun locked and cocked and being in a mindset that pulling out that weapon means that you have to be willing to shoot makes it far more likely to end up shooting in a situation where it isn't needed.

[General Zod]

Well, the question is, is it only reasonable to pull out a gun if you are going to use it, or is it also reasonable to pull out a gun in order to make the other person take a step back/frighten them/make it clear you aren't a defenceless victim?

Can you follow through with your threat if they charge you? If not you probably shouldn't be carrying because they could use the weapon against you if you won't pull the trigger.

[Jub]

It might, or it might not. I'd be less inclined to commit a planned and rational crime if my option was a bat or a machete than if I had easy access to a gun. If it's a crime of passion that's spur of the moment then I'll be doing it anyway because it isn't rational. I'll be less deadly without the gun though and that's a win right there.

In case you willfully missed it the first two times, I'm not saying we should be giving out CCWs like candy.

I understand that position just fine. I'm saying I don't find your line of reasoning valid because there is no evidence that a person carrying concealed is actually any safer. Show me that the housewife hiding from the ex is actually safer for carrying a gun, specifically a concealed gun, and you might have a case.

------

Thanks for the tag fix D.Turtle.

[General Zod]

I understand that position just fine. I'm saying I don't find your line of reasoning valid because there is no evidence that a person carrying concealed is actually any safer. Show me that the housewife hiding from the ex is actually safer for carrying a gun, specifically a concealed gun, and you might have a case.

So exactly what do you consider acceptable evidence? Because I can find countless examples of people defending themselves from home break-ins with a gun.