Are guns necessary in today's America

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Are guns necessary in today's America

Fog Tripper: Mar 3, 2008; by Smythe

Fog Tripper posted:

Your most discussed example resulted in the firearm playing no role in the event.

Also this is apparently a dude who drew his gun on people previously (i.e. brandishing and likely assaulting) in minor incidents on little pretext, before finally being arrested and charged when he beat down someone who dared to talked back to him. Does he or his behavior seem like a widely generalizeable example for either CCW holders at large, or people who are genuinely concerned about their neighbors and are willing to intervene if they see them in trouble (given both statistics and common loving sense)?

# ? Jul 15, 2015 23:00

Fog Tripper: Mar 3, 2008; by Smythe

LGD posted:

Also this is apparently a dude who drew his gun on people previously (i.e. brandishing and likely assaulting) in minor incidents on little pretext, before finally being arrested and charged when he beat down someone who dared to talked back to him. Does he or his behavior seem like a widely generalizeable example for either CCW holders at large, or people who are genuinely concerned about their neighbors and are willing to intervene if they see them in trouble (given both statistics and common loving sense)?

To be honest I believe his anecdote about as much as I do the ihop story. Which is to say, not all that much.

# ? Jul 15, 2015 23:04

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

LGD posted:

Also this is apparently a dude who drew his gun on people previously (i.e. brandishing and likely assaulting) in minor incidents on little pretext, before finally being arrested and charged when he beat down someone who dared to talked back to him. Does he or his behavior seem like a widely generalizeable example for either CCW holders at large, or people who are genuinely concerned about their neighbors and are willing to intervene if they see them in trouble (given both statistics and common loving sense)?

it must be noted that he wasn't scottish either

# ? Jul 15, 2015 23:43

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Obdicut posted:

Gun culture in the US is nutty, partially because people do have this fantasy of interceding, but more because they have an idea that they'll need to defend themselves. People think there is far more crime, and far more of a chance of them being attacked, than their really is. For every gun owner who actually legitimately has a situation where they might encounter a need for a gun--like a diamond merchant--there are thirty guys who are sure that someone is going to home invade them one day or that they'll get carjacked, despite the vanishing statistical improbability of that and the significant statistical likelihood of that gun being involved in an accident, used against them, etc.

I don't think the lasting solution to this is gun control--though I expect the 5-4 heller decision to be revisited once the bench changes--but through addressing that fear that people have. Unfortunately, for many people that fear is tied in with racism and a lot of other weird poo poo so it's hard to disentangle.

We, as a society, have seen our crime rates absolutely plummet for decades, and it's great and awesome and we should be celebrating it, but the scaremongering of the media and places like Drudge, as well as the kind of folk histories spread around by self-defense fetishists, keep that fear alive and well.

And yeah, in general don't try to get involved in someone else's fight. If someone is getting stomped, help out, but if people are just brawling don't get involved, I thought this was common sense.

Edit: And definitely don't wander around your neighborhood with a gun as neighborhood watch, that poo poo is obviously horrible.

Yes I think you're right. Most Americans have a high degree of personal safety in their lives. A lot of Americans also like guns. That's why a lot of the justifications for it are post-hoc rationalizations. Most people buy guns because they enjoy them, and fighting the government (by gun owners who are largely past fighting age) or defending against criminals (despite living with Western European levels of safety) are rationalizations that don't quite square with the reality of our lives.

But it's difficult to make the argument: "I think guns should be legal because I like them." Because the opposite argument is that free access to guns enables deranged people to commit atrocities. It makes murder much easier. One argument is that there are so many guns already, so gun control is pointless. But this a problem *created by the presence of guns* in the first place -- so the argument doesn't hold much water.

What's much more interesting to me is that argument that guns should be legal despite the dangers of their proliferation. That a dangerous society in which people are free to do dangerous things is preferable to a safer environment where people are under more restrictions. That's a much more sweeping and philosophical argument that goes back to Thomas Jefferson. Doesn't mean he was right, but I think it's more interesting.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Jul 15, 2015

# ? Jul 15, 2015 23:48

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Fog Tripper posted:

To be honest I believe his anecdote about as much as I do the ihop story. Which is to say, not all that much.

if you don't know the violent dumbass in your social circle who doesn't think things through, you probably are that violent dumbass. I don't really see the point of denying furiously that there are people with poor impulse control around, or who are unable to de-escalate situations, or pretending that these people have significant difficulty in getting guns if they're otherwise fairly bougie. People aren't born with like conflict resolution skills and plenty of states don't paint an explicitly clear picture of what is and isn't an appropriate situation to go to war over during the CHL permitting process, in my state having taken a hunter safety course or been part of the military is all the training and qualification you need and if you're hazy on whether someone touching your arm is grounds for 'defending yourself' it's on you to go out and figure that out afterwards.

Society contains a certain percentage of assholes, that's kind of the basic argument for owning guns for personal defense in the first place. Not all those assholes are fanged multiple rapists who jump you out of dark alleyways, some of them get concealed carry permits and form a neighborhood watch, lots of them join the police.

A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jul 16, 2015

# ? Jul 16, 2015 00:05

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

if you don't know the violent dumbass in your social circle who doesn't think things through, you probably are that violent dumbass. I don't really see the point of denying furiously that there are people with poor impulse control around, or who are unable to de-escalate situations, or pretending that these people have significant difficulty in getting guns if they're otherwise fairly bougie. People aren't born with like conflict resolution skills and plenty of states don't paint an explicitly clear picture of what is and isn't an appropriate context to go to war over during the CHL permitting process, in my state having taken a hunter safety course or been part of the military is all the training and qualification you need.

this is absolutely true, it's just that the evidence would indicate that these people either empirically aren't much of a problem OR that they occur with extremely low frequency among the CHL population, so the relevancy to assessing the mental state of CHL holders at large seems limited barring some other evidence

that he wants to use this as an indictment of the dangers of feeling responsible for the well being of other humans is just bizzare

# ? Jul 16, 2015 00:14

Pauline Kael: Oct 9, 2012; by Shine

LGD posted:

So you're expecting people to take your internet story anecdote and related batman-based psychological extrapolations about the thinking of a violent guy you knew seriously as meaningful insight into the thinking of both a substantial minority of gun owners and people who feel they are responsible for the well-being of others on some level?

because lol

most people, gun owners or no, are concerned with the safety of others. i'm not sure how many of those people however feel like it is their duty to arm themselves so they can be the hero on the spot who takes down a spree shooter or confronts a robber. these people do exist whether you like it or not

Pauline Kael posted:

Serioustalk you just made all that poo poo up, right? I don't think you know any ccw holders, or any actual gun owners. Your posts are the leftist version of ihop ninja

i can't control the degree to which you're willing to deny reality, that's a personal choice you make

i'll agree with you i don't know any right now, the guy i'm talking about had his permit revoked and i stopped talking to him after i kicked him out

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jul 16, 2015

# ? Jul 16, 2015 00:14

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

LGD posted:

Sure, but how many of those people exist, and how much of that behavior is actually a problem (i.e. the psychotic mall-cop of your fantasies vs. conflict averse dude who wants to be prepared)? "I once knew a violent guy who liked to needlessly escalate situations" isn't really what you'd call compelling evidence for Batman-based pathologies in the population at large, or a good reason for people to avoid taking an interest in the safety of others.

i was just using this example to illustrate a mindset which many people itt refused and still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is a real thing. also this is a bad time to be denying the existence of violent and aggressive police

there are better ways to care about the safety of others rather than walking around with a gun. it's probably better to walk around unarmed, given how statistically you're more likely to harm yourself or an innocent than you are to stop a crime - there are typically as many if not more accidental killings than justifiable homicides

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jul 16, 2015

# ? Jul 16, 2015 00:28

Doccers: Aug 15, 2000; Patron Saint of Chickencheese

Doccers posted:

I was unaware that it had to result in a justifiable homicide to count as stopping a crime.

and you don't have to kill someone to accidentally wound someone with a gun through irresponsibility

# ? Jul 16, 2015 00:42

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

LGD posted:

suggest that altruistically intervening on behalf of strangers in trouble is bad because people who think they might want to do so will inevitably do it in the stupidest, most belligerent, and disproportional manner possible.

hm no, that is actually a defensive interpretation of my argument such that you can dissipate your dislike of my contention that some people who have CCW permits have them for directly harmful and anti-social reasons. remember that this whole derail popped up because some goon imagined that i would passively watch a woman being raped to death

# ? Jul 16, 2015 00:45

tsa: Feb 3, 2014

Intervening against strangers when you have no idea what is going on is dumb as poo poo, but to be fair no one here would actually do so and are just pretending to be tough guys on the internet.

# ? Jul 16, 2015 00:56

Doccers: Aug 15, 2000; Patron Saint of Chickencheese

http://fox13now.com/2012/04/26/two-stabbed-in-downtown-slc-parking-lot/

Not only was there demonstratably no crime here for him to stop (No justified homicide for you buddy, Zero points on your board, you wanna-be killer!), the dumb shithead also intervened in a dispute with complete strangers.

CCW Permit holders are so unstable it makes me so internet angry

Doccers fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jul 16, 2015

# ? Jul 16, 2015 00:59

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

if you don't know the violent dumbass in your social circle who doesn't think things through, you probably are that violent dumbass. I don't really see the point of denying furiously that there are people with poor impulse control around, or who are unable to de-escalate situations, or pretending that these people have significant difficulty in getting guns if they're otherwise fairly bougie

That is quite the leap from my statement that I believe both stories to be bullshit. But whatever helps you feel more successful at your posting I guess. :shrug:

"denying furiously"? Seriously dude?

quote:

i think we should be worried about people who walk around armed with a weapon pretending that they're batman ready to intervene in other people's situations

like i said i had a roomate who was walking around one night, saw a man and woman he didn't know arguing, decided that he needed to step in to protect her, and ended up in a fistfight with the guy. it's good that he didn't draw his pistol and shoot the guy, but he still had the mentality that he had a responsibility to protect others and that + gun ownership is a bad combination

quote:

it's generally a bad idea to confront anyone directly unless you personally know them, and even then, it's always best to call the police and pass on information to them. otherwise you could be charged with assault, or worse. unless someone's life is directly and immediately in danger it is no business of yours to break up a fight between two other people

when people pointed out that this was abhorrent as a general principle, and gave examples of scenarios where it would lead to terrible outcomes, you took/feigned offense and instead of doing something sensible like simply clarifying what you meant, you doubled down on talking about the anti-social batman-esque mentality you're sure people out there have

Like you're still pretending I and others dispute people have CCWs for antisocial reasons- I don't, I haven't, and I and others have acknowledged this multiple times. It's just thatI dispute they exist in nearly the numbers you're implying and pretty much all empirical evidence would suggest either I'm right, or that it doesn't matter because that antisocial mentality doesn't actually lead to any detectable bad behavior. The fact that you once had a lovely roommate who got arrested for a fistfight doesn't really have any bearing on this.

LGD fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Jul 16, 2015

# ? Jul 16, 2015 01:26

Fog Tripper: Mar 3, 2008; by Smythe

LGD posted:

no the derail started because you indicated intervening in any violent or abusive situation was clearly a bad idea because once you had a violent roommate who unnecessarily escalated a situation by beating down a guy who was giving him lip and got arrested for it (and initially phrased things as if the arrest were the bad outcome in this), and suggested that this was a generally applicable principle

do you think that his intervention was a poor idea, aside from how he handled it? i said that often you should just call the police, unless someone's life is in danger. what would you have done when you intervene in a domestic argument in public?

LGD posted:

Like you're still pretending I and others dispute people have CCWs for antisocial reasons- I don't, I haven't, and I and others have acknowledged this multiple times. It's just thatI dispute they exist in nearly the numbers you're implying and pretty much all empirical evidence would suggest either I'm right, or that it doesn't matter because that antisocial mentality doesn't actually lead to any detectable bad behavior. The fact that you once had a lovely roommate who got arrested for a fistfight doesn't really have any bearing on this.

what numbers am i implying? are you denying that my roommate existed, had a CCW, and thought he needed to solve people's problems where it was never wanted nor necessary? that seems immature, to flatly say reality is wrong

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jul 16, 2015

# ? Jul 16, 2015 01:31

Fog Tripper: Mar 3, 2008; by Smythe

Fog Tripper posted:

Still haven't explained what this has to do with a CCW. Also you slowly insert new info each time you mention the story (this time you say it was the guy's wife) that would not be known to the bystander.

This is the worst game of Clue ever.

Edit: At least we know the murder weapon wasn't the revolver.

# ? Jul 16, 2015 01:44

Pauline Kael: Oct 9, 2012; by Shine

Shooting Blanks posted:

This is the worst game of Clue ever.

Edit: At least we know the murder weapon wasn't the revolver.

Well, we know that he had a CCW license, but do we even know if he had a firearm with him at the time of the alleged incident?

# ? Jul 16, 2015 01:46

Pauline Kael: Oct 9, 2012; by Shine

Fog Tripper posted:

Well, we know that he had a CCW license, but do we even know if he had a firearm with him at the time of the alleged incident?

it was confiscated by the police and as far as i know he never got it back, he also lost his permit. that's the last i heard from him before i kicked him out for skipping rent

# ? Jul 16, 2015 01:47

Fog Tripper: Mar 3, 2008; by Smythe

Pauline Kael posted:

Hey man it's your pick your own adventure story, YOU tell us what happens next!

I loved those adventures. Not really all that great replay-wise.

# ? Jul 16, 2015 01:48

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

quote:

suggest that altruistically intervening on behalf of strangers in trouble is bad because people who think they might want to do so will inevitably do it in the stupidest, most belligerent, and disproportional manner possible.

and you insisted that just wasn't so? You're doing it again- there are plenty of public domestic disputes no one should get involved in, and there are also cases of physical or verbal abuse where someone should (whether verbally or physically). Your roommate choosing a flimsy pretext to violently assault someone doesn't really bear on whether or not a reasonable person would or should choose to intervene, and there's no point speculating given the total paucity of detail.

# ? Jul 16, 2015 01:48

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

LGD posted:

Remember when I said that you

and you insisted that just wasn't so? You're doing it again- there are plenty of public domestic disputes no one should get involved in, and there are also cases of physical or verbal abuse where someone should (whether verbally or physically). Your roommate choosing a flimsy pretext to violently assault someone doesn't really bear on whether or not a reasonable person would or should choose to intervene, and there's no point speculating given the total paucity of detail.

so then why would you speculate as to his mindstate or intent when trying to disprove my anecdotal illustration of how some people carry because they fantasize about being the lone good guy with a gun? i agree with you that there's no point speculating and that people should just take my account at face value but apparently my personal experiences are seriously triggering to others

# ? Jul 16, 2015 01:49

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I just want to congratulate our never-returned OP on making what I think is undeniably the honeypot thread of the quarter.

# ? Jul 16, 2015 01:54

LGD: Sep 25, 2004