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

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

Your question seems ridiculous. Maybe I'm not understanding you. You're seriously asking to show how a female is safer from a male by owning a firearm? Assuming she is willing and able to kill how is this not common sense for you?

[D.Turtle]

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.

If they are persistent enough to charge you after you pull out a gun, it wouldn't have made much of a difference in comparison to not having a gun in the first place. I think it would be quite unlikely to make them even more persistent in attacking you after you show a gun, than without showing a gun. If they do charge me after I pull out a gun, unless they immediately (as within half a second) charge me when I pull it out, I will not be in a worse situation between pulling out a gun and cocking it or having a locked and cocked weapon with me all the time.

To put it like this: How likely is a situation where the second or so difference between pulling out a locked and cocked weapon and shooting it and pulling out a loaded weapon and cocking it and then shooting it would make a difference? Is the chance of being in such an (in my opinion) unlikely situation worth the risk of carrying around a locked and cocked weapon around all the time in comparison to carrying around a loaded weapon all the time?

In my opinion, no.

[Jub]

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.

You have to prove carrying concealed is safer than openly carrying a weapon. I'd also like proof that carrying a gun in public makes you safer than not carrying one.

Home break-ins don't count because even if you only owned that weapon for hunting/range shooting you could put a magazine into a rifle when you hear that somebody is in your house. Most home break-ins won't be stopped because you had your CCW on you.

Your question seems ridiculous. Maybe I'm not understanding you. You're seriously asking to show how a female is safer from a male by owning a firearm? Assuming she is willing and able to kill how is this not common sense for you?

So your average battered housewife is going to have the training and willingness to kill needed for a CCW to be a difference maker? Good to know that everybody in the US is a trained killer.

Also, how is this same woman reasonably safe in many other places in the world, but once your cross the border to 'Merca she needs to carry a weapon?

[General Zod]

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.

If they are persistent enough to charge you after you pull out a gun, it wouldn't have made much of a difference in comparison to not having a gun in the first place. I think it would be quite unlikely to make them even more persistent in attacking you after you show a gun, than without showing a gun. If they do charge me after I pull out a gun, unless they immediately (as within half a second) charge me when I pull it out, I will not be in a worse situation between pulling out a gun and cocking it or having a locked and cocked weapon with me all the time.

Maybe not. Depends on how quick your reaction time is I suppose.

To put it like this: How likely is a situation where the second or so difference between pulling out a locked and cocked weapon and shooting it and pulling out a loaded weapon and cocking it and then shooting it would make a difference? Is the chance of being in such an (in my opinion) unlikely situation worth the risk of carrying around a locked and cocked weapon around all the time in comparison to carrying around a loaded weapon all the time?

In my opinion, no.

I can dash across a typical 4 lane street in about 5 seconds, and I'm hardly the most athletic person in the world.

[General Zod]

You have to prove carrying concealed is safer than openly carrying a weapon. I'd also like proof that carrying a gun in public makes you safer than not carrying one.

That's not what I asked.

Also, how is this same woman reasonably safe in many other places in the world, but once your cross the border to 'Merca she needs to carry a weapon?

Nobody is saying this.

[Jub]

You have to prove carrying concealed is safer than openly carrying a weapon. I'd also like proof that carrying a gun in public makes you safer than not carrying one.

That's not what I asked.

You asked what proof I would find acceptable and I told you what you'd need to prove. I guess I should make it clear that anecdotal news reports aren't good enough. AS for what would be good enough, show me some actually studies done. The NRA must have done some research to support their positions over the years.

Also, how is this same woman reasonably safe in many other places in the world, but once your cross the border to 'Merca she needs to carry a weapon?

Nobody is saying this.

People are pointing it out as self evident that a woman who's dealing with a psycho ex will be safer with a gun. If she was truly going to be that much safer you'd think there would be something showing that. You'd also think that the rate of violence against women would be higher in places where a women with an abusive spouse can't get a gun.

[General Zod]

You asked what proof I would find acceptable and I told you what you'd need to prove. I guess I should make it clear that anecdotal news reports aren't good enough. AS for what would be good enough, show me some actually studies done. The NRA must have done some research to support their positions over the years.

Incidentally, I haven't been claiming the things that you're asking me to prove which makes me wonder if you've actually read my posts.

People are pointing it out as self evident that a woman who's dealing with a psycho ex will be safer with a gun. If she was truly going to be that much safer you'd think there would be something showing that. You'd also think that the rate of violence against women would be higher in places where a women with an abusive spouse can't get a gun.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resource ... 87794.html

Domestic abuse accounts for 18% of all violent crime.
Home Office (2011) Crime in England and Wales 2010/11. London: Home Office

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViol ... nal%29.pdf

Approximately 20% of the 1.5 million people who experience intimate partner violence annually obtain civil protection orders.1 Approximately one-half of the orders obtained by women against intimate partners who physically assaulted them were violated.1 More than two-thirds of the restraining orders against intimate partners who raped or stalked the victim were violated.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm

Police are more likely to respond within 5 minutes if an offender is a stranger than if an offender is known to a female victim. (Ronet Bachman, Ph.D. "Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report." U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice and Statistics. January 1994, p. 9.)

[D.Turtle]

I can dash across a typical 4 lane street in about 5 seconds, and I'm hardly the most athletic person in the world.

And this addresses my question how?

How likely is a situation in which the time difference between pulling out a gun and shooting and pulling out a gun, cocking it, and then shooting is going to make a difference?

[General Zod]

I can dash across a typical 4 lane street in about 5 seconds, and I'm hardly the most athletic person in the world.

And this addresses my question how?

How likely is a situation in which the time difference between pulling out a gun and shooting and pulling out a gun, cocking it, and then shooting is going to make a difference?

Depends on your reaction time? If you freeze up or you don't act fast enough it might make all the difference, or it might not. I don't think there's any way to say for sure.

[Jub]

You asked what proof I would find acceptable and I told you what you'd need to prove. I guess I should make it clear that anecdotal news reports aren't good enough. AS for what would be good enough, show me some actually studies done. The NRA must have done some research to support their positions over the years.

Incidentally, I haven't been claiming the things that you're asking me to prove which makes me wonder if you've actually read my posts.

Are you saying there's no circumstances whatsoever where it's fine for a civilian to carry concealed? What if a woman escaped her abusive husband and feels a need to defend herself because she thinks he might try something extreme if she runs into him on the street?

You made claims that there are circumstances where people need CCW's and then picked a specific example.

Now let me make this clear. Provide proof that a woman carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise, is actually going to be appreciably safer than if she wasn't carrying a weapon. You brought up the point, so I assume you have evidence to defend it.

People are pointing it out as self evident that a woman who's dealing with a psycho ex will be safer with a gun. If she was truly going to be that much safer you'd think there would be something showing that. You'd also think that the rate of violence against women would be higher in places where a women with an abusive spouse can't get a gun.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resource ... 87794.html

Domestic abuse accounts for 18% of all violent crime.
Home Office (2011) Crime in England and Wales 2010/11. London: Home Office

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViol ... nal%29.pdf

Approximately 20% of the 1.5 million people who experience intimate partner violence annually obtain civil protection orders.1 Approximately one-half of the orders obtained by women against intimate partners who physically assaulted them were violated.1 More than two-thirds of the restraining orders against intimate partners who raped or stalked the victim were violated.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm

Police are more likely to respond within 5 minutes if an offender is a stranger than if an offender is known to a female victim. (Ronet Bachman, Ph.D. "Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report." U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice and Statistics. January 1994, p. 9.)

I'm failing to see what this has to do with being armed with a gun.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can dash across a typical 4 lane street in about 5 seconds, and I'm hardly the most athletic person in the world.

And this addresses my question how?

How likely is a situation in which the time difference between pulling out a gun and shooting and pulling out a gun, cocking it, and then shooting is going to make a difference?

Why does it matter?

You, and others, seem to be under the impression that carrying a loaded and cocked firearm poses a significant risk. Justify this.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So your average battered housewife is going to have the training and willingness to kill needed for a CCW to be a difference maker? Good to know that everybody in the US is a trained killer.

Also, how is this same woman reasonably safe in many other places in the world, but once your cross the border to 'Merca she needs to carry a weapon?

We're not discussing training issues or mental preparedness. You asked whether or not a housewife is safer from an ex when she is armed with a gun. If she is mentally prepared and capable of shooting a person the answer is yes.

If you don't accept that then let me ask you how her safety is reduced?*

*again assuming she is trained and has the mental capability to shoot someone.

[General Zod]

You made claims that there are circumstances where people need CCW's and then picked a specific example.

Now let me make this clear. Provide proof that a woman carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise, is actually going to be appreciably safer than if she wasn't carrying a weapon. You brought up the point, so I assume you have evidence to defend it.

Are you suggesting the average woman is capable of defending herself effectively without a weapon if she is attacked? Do you have evidence for this?

[D.Turtle]

Why does it matter?

You, and others, seem to be under the impression that carrying a loaded and cocked firearm poses a significant risk. Justify this.

The opening post of this thread?

[General Zod]

Why does it matter?

You, and others, seem to be under the impression that carrying a loaded and cocked firearm poses a significant risk. Justify this.

The opening post of this thread?

If it's properly holstered the risk of accidental discharge drops to nil. The idiot in the article didn't seem to have it properly holstered.

[Jub]

So your average battered housewife is going to have the training and willingness to kill needed for a CCW to be a difference maker? Good to know that everybody in the US is a trained killer.

Also, how is this same woman reasonably safe in many other places in the world, but once your cross the border to 'Merca she needs to carry a weapon?

We're not discussing training issues or mental preparedness. You asked whether or not a housewife is safer from an ex when she is armed with a gun. If she is mentally prepared and capable of shooting a person the answer is yes.

If you don't accept that then let me ask you how her safety is reduced?*

*again assuming she is trained and has the mental capability to shoot someone.

Nice strawman you have there. You know as well as I do that most people who own guns aren't especially well trained and an untrained person who is willing to use a gun is a danger that I'm not willing to accept.

It has been proven that removing easy access to handguns reduces deaths due to violent crime. Now please show me some actual evidence that a person carrying a weapon is safer than a person who isn't. I'm not going to accept that it is self evident that a person who owns a weapon is safer than one without, and we're not playing in hypothetical land where everybody is perfectly trained.

You made claims that there are circumstances where people need CCW's and then picked a specific example.

Now let me make this clear. Provide proof that a woman carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise, is actually going to be appreciably safer than if she wasn't carrying a weapon. You brought up the point, so I assume you have evidence to defend it.

Are you suggesting the average woman is capable of defending herself effectively without a weapon if she is attacked? Do you have evidence for this?

Irrelevant, you need to prove that she is actually safer for carrying a gun. In my mind she'd be just as safe carrying a can of mace or a taser.

If it's properly holstered the risk of accidental discharge drops to nil. The idiot in the article didn't seem to have it properly holstered.

So idiots with guns ARE a significant risk to themselves and others. Thanks for proving our point.

[General Zod]

Irrelevant, you need to prove that she is actually safer for carrying a gun. In my mind she'd be just as safe carrying a can of mace or a taser.

What if the attacker has a knife? Mace and tasers have been shown to be ineffective against some people, especially when drugs are involved.

So idiots with guns ARE a significant risk to themselves and others. Thanks for proving our point.

So . . . you reject all sorts of anecdotes that refute your side but immediately accept the one that backs up your claim? Would you kindly get fucked?

[Jub]

Irrelevant, you need to prove that she is actually safer for carrying a gun. In my mind she'd be just as safe carrying a can of mace or a taser.

What if the attacker has a knife? Mace and tasers have been shown to be ineffective against some people, especially when drugs are involved.

Wow, a small subset of people MIGHT not be stopped by a taser or mace, so that is reason enough to carry a gun. Do you take such extreme precautions about other astonishingly unlikely risks in your life?

So idiots with guns ARE a significant risk to themselves and others. Thanks for proving our point.

So . . . you reject all sorts of anecdotes that refute your side but immediately accept the one that backs up your claim? Would you kindly get fucked?

I'm on the side that has evidence that removing guns reduces deaths. Where are the hard numbers that support your claims?

I'm going to ask you to follow Debate Rule 5 here.

[aerius]

To put it like this: How likely is a situation where the second or so difference between pulling out a locked and cocked weapon and shooting it and pulling out a loaded weapon and cocking it and then shooting it would make a difference? Is the chance of being in such an (in my opinion) unlikely situation worth the risk of carrying around a locked and cocked weapon around all the time in comparison to carrying around a loaded weapon all the time?

In my opinion, no.

The problem isn't your reaction time, rather, it's the potential for brainfarts while operating under severe stress. Can you remember to cock your firearm when you're scared shitless and experiencing a massive adrenaline dump? Furthermore, can you muster up the muscle co-ordination to do so? Probably not, unless you've put in many hours of quality training. Anyone can draw, cock, and discharge a firearm at the range, it's a lot harder to do it when someone's charging at you with bad intentions.

[General Zod]

Wow, a small subset of people MIGHT not be stopped by a taser or mace, so that is reason enough to carry a gun. Do you take such extreme precautions about other astonishingly unlikely risks in your life?

Thanks for proving you're a retard.

I'm on the side that has evidence that removing guns reduces deaths. Where are the hard numbers that support your claims?

I'm going to ask you to follow Debate Rule 5 here.

Go back two pages. You dismissed my numbers with a "ho-hum maybe?".

While we're at it, Sweden has a gun ownership rate that's comparable to the US, but less than 200 gun homicides per year.

[Jub]

The problem isn't your reaction time, rather, it's the potential for brainfarts while operating under severe stress. Can you remember to cock your firearm when you're scared shitless and experiencing a massive adrenaline dump? Furthermore, can you muster up the muscle co-ordination to do so? Probably not, unless you've put in many hours of quality training. Anyone can draw, cock, and discharge a firearm at the range, it's a lot harder to do it when someone's charging at you with bad intentions.

When you're that frightened, how do you know if you're pointing your weapon at something that needs shooting? What if you get all panicky and draw because a minority is reach for a cellphone and you've been raised to be wary of muggers? We all know that this isn't an especially rare thing to have happen, and that's my entire point.

Your average person with a handgun has a large enough chance of being a danger to others that my feeling is that they have a greater chance of hurting somebody than they do of successfully defending themselves against a threat. Now if anybody has evidence to disprove my claim go ahead and post it.

Wow, a small subset of people MIGHT not be stopped by a taser or mace, so that is reason enough to carry a gun. Do you take such extreme precautions about other astonishingly unlikely risks in your life?

Thanks for proving you're a retard.

Are you going to address the question?

I'm on the side that has evidence that removing guns reduces deaths. Where are the hard numbers that support your claims?

I'm going to ask you to follow Debate Rule 5 here.

Go back two pages. You dismissed my numbers with a "ho-hum maybe?".

While we're at it, Sweden has a gun ownership rate that's comparable to the US, but less than 200 gun homicides per year.

How do the numbers you've posted actually prove that you're safer carrying a gun than you are if you don't carry one?

Sweden isn't really comparable to the US. Nor does saying that prove that you're safer if you carry a weapon.

[General Zod]

How do the numbers you've posted actually prove that you're safer carrying a gun than you are if you don't carry one?

That's not what I'm claiming with those numbers, so you're either illiterate or a liar.

Sweden isn't really comparable to the US. Nor does saying that prove that you're safer if you carry a weapon.

Why not? Your claim is that not having guns makes you safer regardless of anything else.

[Jub]

How do the numbers you've posted actually prove that you're safer carrying a gun than you are if you don't carry one?

That's not what I'm claiming with those numbers, so you're either illiterate or a liar.

You never made any claim in the post where you tossed out a bunch of numbers. So please, tell the class exactly what you think those numbers say.

In fact, as you seem to think you're being misunderstood, why don't you lay your claims out nice and clearly for us.

Sweden isn't really comparable to the US. Nor does saying that prove that you're safer if you carry a weapon.

Why not? Your claim is that not having guns makes you safer regardless of anything else.

Really simple question for you Zod, are you more or less likely to be killed in a society where people have guns or in a society where people don't?

[General Zod]

You never made any claim in the post where you tossed out a bunch of numbers. So please, tell the class exactly what you think those numbers say.

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

So you're either illiterate or a liar.

Really simple question for you Zod, are you more or less likely to be killed in a society where people have guns or in a society where people don't?

All of the numbers that I see say "It's more complicated than some childish binary value."

Now are you going to answer my point about Sweden or are you just going to keep moving the goalposts?

[Jub]

You never made any claim in the post where you tossed out a bunch of numbers. So please, tell the class exactly what you think those numbers say.

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

So you're either illiterate or a liar.

So your entire claim is that people will be violent with or without guns. Yet you ignore the fact that when you remove guns less people die from violent crime. With that level of flexibility you might be the only person I know who can suck his own dick with his head up his ass.

Really simple question for you Zod, are you more or less likely to be killed in a society where people have guns or in a society where people don't?

All of the numbers that I see say "It's more complicated than some childish binary value."

Bullshit! Name a weapon that people commonly carry that is both equally deadly, as easy to carry, and as easy to use as a firearm. Then go ahead and show me where all the mass crimes with that weapon are. If it's really that complicated there should be something out there to muddy the water.