SWATrous called it game theory style analysis, but I know what I was doing wasn't that. If you want I can do it all properly, because I understand it enough to know what I presented above wasn't.
Designated sober killers? That sounds very loaded.
So what else do you call someone whose job it is to pull out a gun in a rowdy part of town full of drunken people? Designated "make the situation escalate to deadly violence more slowly" person?
So what else do you call someone whose job it is to pull out a gun in a rowdy part of town full of drunken people? Designated "make the situation escalate to deadly violence more slowly" person?
Also, it's extremely unfair to compare Iceland with the U.S. The population of Iceland is at 321,857. The population of the county, a small subset of the state of VA, I grew up in is at 1,118,602. It's not hard to govern small, monoethnic peoples.
Their job is not to pull out a gun. You are acting as if possession of the gun incites use of the gun.
So explain to me what their job will be in a situation where violence begins between two groups of drunken people. If it doesn't include using the a gun (either by firing it or displaying it for intimidation or control purposes), then why should they even have a gun?
Also, it's extremely unfair to compare Iceland with the U.S. The population of Iceland is at 321,857. The population of the county, a small subset of the state of VA, I grew up in is at 1,118,602. It's not hard to govern small, monoethnic peoples.
I used Iceland as an extreme example. My main comparison was between the USA and the rest of the developed world.
How about London? You probably heard about this story. After a murder on a street, a woman stops the killer and asks him to hand over his weapon. Police arrive and set up a cordon, even though they know someone has a gun. The armed police arrive, and don't fire until they are rushed by two attackers. They shoot but don't kill them.
Contrast that with just about any story from America. It's a strange story, true enough, but high profile enough that the details are clear.
Their job is not to pull out a gun. You are acting as if possession of the gun incites use of the gun.
So explain to me what their job will be in a situation where violence begins between two groups of drunken people. If it doesn't include using the a gun (either by firing it or displaying it for intimidation or control purposes), then why should they even have a gun?
Their job is to keep their friends safe using the appropriate level of force.
You are also ignoring the possibility of a sober assailant who is there to prey on drunks.
Their job is not to pull out a gun. You are acting as if possession of the gun incites use of the gun.
So explain to me what their job will be in a situation where violence begins between two groups of drunken people. If it doesn't include using the a gun (either by firing it or displaying it for intimidation or control purposes), then why should they even have a gun?
Their job is to keep their friends safe using the appropriate level of force.
We both know that answer is way too vague to fly here.
I am also not ignoring any possibility. But when considering any situation, it's best to first consider the most likely arrangements, possibilities, and outcomes. A sober assailant who is there to prey on drunks? Does that come above or below "drunk person gets control of sober person's gun"?
Their job is not to pull out a gun. You are acting as if possession of the gun incites use of the gun.
So explain to me what their job will be in a situation where violence begins between two groups of drunken people. If it doesn't include using the a gun (either by firing it or displaying it for intimidation or control purposes), then why should they even have a gun?
Their job is to keep their friends safe using the appropriate level of force.
Have you considered that the best way for them to keep their friends safe might be not to bring a gun, and not to use force?
Why should the sober one not be prepared for any likely scenario? The scenario already postulates an area of town full of belligerent drunks, a place with fights being common. The possibility of a sober assailant intending to roll drunks is not unlikely, nor is the possibility of a major altercation.
Further why are you assuming that mere possession of a firearm will lead to its use? The sober guy need never draw the weapon so why are you so hell bent against a sober person carrying in this situation? Does wearing a uniform and carrying a badge suddenly make it OK? Is it OK if the sober guy is an off duty cop?
Why should the sober one not be prepared for any likely scenario? The scenario already postulates an area of town full of belligerent drunks, a place with fights being common. The possibility of a sober assailant intending to roll drunks is not unlikely, nor is the possibility of a major altercation.
I don't think I agree with you as to what exactly the word "unlikely" means. Such outcomes are possible, but they hardly qualify as "likely". I'm not sure why either scenario makes having a gun a particularly good idea, though.
Further why are you assuming that mere possession of a firearm will lead to its use? The sober guy need never draw the weapon so why are you so hell bent against a sober person carrying in this situation? Does wearing a uniform and carrying a badge suddenly make it OK?
No, it does not. Police are special in this regard primarily because of the social contract that makes them what they are. It is not merely a matter of a uniform and a badge.
Cops are allowed to carry guns because its really hard to be the violent arm of socioeconomic oppression without having the appropriate tool of murder strapped to your waist.
Also, I'm not assuming that possession of a firearm leads to its use, but I think there's a pretty strong case to be made with regards to non-possession leading to non-use.
Also, I'm not assuming that possession of a firearm leads to its use, but I think there's a pretty strong case to be made with regards to non-possession leading to non-use.
This mirrors my thoughts. I don't like the whole, "If he has a gun he will use it" mentality I am seeing. I see a setup here in that if anyone were to agree that the sober guy should not have a gun then no one should have one. The drunks certainly should not have guns in this situation but there is no reason why a responsible and sober gun owner should not have the option.
Also, I'm not assuming that possession of a firearm leads to its use, but I think there's a pretty strong case to be made with regards to non-possession leading to non-use.
This mirrors my thoughts. I don't like the whole, "If he has a gun he will use it" mentality I am seeing. I see a setup here in that if anyone were to agree that the sober guy should not have a gun then no one should have one. The drunks certainly should not have guns in this situation but there is no reason why a responsible and sober gun owner should not have the option.
Assume this part of town has not had a shooting ever but only has fights like the suburb I spoke of in my prior post.
One of your friends says something stupid and it is misunderstood as threatening by other drunk people. This leads to a fight. You see a friend getting kicked by 3 people when he is down.
You are the designated driver and for some insane reason you decide to bring a gun.
A fight breaks out amongst friends and another group. The other group is stomping your friends.
A. You pull out your gun and start shooting people. B. You pull out your gun and someone struggles with you to get it, resulting in a misfire death. C. You end up drinking and decide to take public transport home and decide to act irrationally with the weapon. D. You enter the fray of the fist fight and B occurs or they take the gun and shoot you or your friend. E. You call the police who are a few hundred metres away, you are arrested or taken to the police station for carrying a firearm or concealed firearm and are blamed by media for inciting the fight.
This entire scenario is an anti-gun setup. There is no reason why a sober and legal gun owner should not have the option to carry except in a situation where carrying is specifically prohibited by law.
This entire scenario is an anti-gun setup. There is no reason why a sober and legal gun owner should not have the option to carry except in a situation where carrying is specifically prohibited by law.
This entire scenario is an anti-gun setup. There is no reason why a sober and legal gun owner should not have the option to carry except in a situation where carrying is specifically prohibited by law.
The WORLD is an anti-gun setup. Nobody is saying it is illegal to carry in America, we're explaining why it's a good idea not to carry.
YOU actually brought up the idea of a designated gun carrier for groups of people going out into rowdy and violent parts of town. You have literally zero defense of your mind-numbingly stupid proposition beyond "Well, it's legal!"
sKOpe showed all the ways that it could go wrong, and you've not addressed a single one of them. I could think of more, but you hide behind far less likely outcomes as those.
All of the situations brought up above are not gun problems but personal responsibility problems. Why are these people going out and getting drunk to the point of belligerency? Fix the underlying issues and gun ownership problems go away.
Fix the underlying issues and gun ownership problems go away.
The underlying issues are human nature. We can't fix that. Society has been trying to fix it for millennia. The REST OF THE WORLD hasn't fixed ANY of these problems yet either. Drunkenness to the point of belligerence is rife in the UK and other places.
For example, the reason why football hooliganism ever existed in the UK is because people DIDN'T have guns. Imagine the same street violence scenes but with added guns. Whelp!
If you have personal responsibility problems and add guns to the mix, people die. It's that simple. If the same problems exist, and guns aren't available, fewer people die.
Of the 395,366 firearms-related deaths reported in the United States between 1997 -- when this data were actually collected -- and 2009 -- the latest date for which the tally of firearms-related deaths is available -- about one-third are thought to have involved alcohol. In 2007, 34.5% of suicide and homicide victims in the United States had alcohol in their systems at the time of death, and 60% of those were considered acutely intoxicated.
..our findings appear robust and are consistent with a series of “natural experiments” from around the world. For example, following the 1996 killing of 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia, a strong movement for gun control developed in Australia. States and territories made uniform and more stringent regulations for the possession of firearms, and instituted a buy-back of the newly illegal guns, most of which were rifles and shotguns. As Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill determined in a paper published in the American Law and Economics Review, these changes resulted in a reduction of the country’s firearm stock by 20 percent, or more than 650,000 firearms, and evidence suggests that it nearly halved the share of Australian households with one or more firearms. The effect of this reduction was an 80 percent fall in suicides by firearm, concentrated in regions with the biggest drop in firearms. Meanwhile there was little sign of any lasting rise in non-firearm suicides.
Suicide is a leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults, and limiting access to guns during those formative, sometimes unsteady years can have a real effect on suicides. In Israel most 18- to 21-year-olds are drafted into the Israeli Defense Forces and provided with military training—and weapons. Suicide among young IDF members is a serious problem. In an attempt to reduce suicides, the IDF tried a new policy in 2005, prohibiting most soldiers from bringing their weapons home over the weekends. Dr. Gad Lubin, the chief mental health officer for the IDF, and his co-authors estimate that this simple change reduced the total suicide rate among young IDF members by a stunning 40 percent. It’s worth noting that even though you might think that soldiers home for the weekend could easily delay suicide by a day or two, the authors did not find an increase in suicide rates during the weekdays. These results are consistent with interviews with near-fatal suicide survivors, who often say their decision was spontaneous and who typically go on to live long lives.
Both of these cite peer reviewed published studies. The conclusion is pretty clear: DO NOT MIX GUNS WITH ALCOHOL AND OTHER PROBLEMS.
All of the situations brought up above are not gun problems but personal responsibility problems. Why are these people going out and getting drunk to the point of belligerency? Fix the underlying issues and gun ownership problems go away.
I would focus on fixing the underlying issue of these hypothetical murder-dens where good, common people just want to have a nice drink without being killed.
Comments
How about London? You probably heard about this story. After a murder on a street, a woman stops the killer and asks him to hand over his weapon. Police arrive and set up a cordon, even though they know someone has a gun. The armed police arrive, and don't fire until they are rushed by two attackers. They shoot but don't kill them.
Contrast that with just about any story from America. It's a strange story, true enough, but high profile enough that the details are clear.
You are also ignoring the possibility of a sober assailant who is there to prey on drunks.
Further why are you assuming that mere possession of a firearm will lead to its use? The sober guy need never draw the weapon so why are you so hell bent against a sober person carrying in this situation? Does wearing a uniform and carrying a badge suddenly make it OK? Is it OK if the sober guy is an off duty cop?
The factor of surprise is not in anyone's control.
Assume this part of town has not had a shooting ever but only has fights like the suburb I spoke of in my prior post.
One of your friends says something stupid and it is misunderstood as threatening by other drunk people. This leads to a fight. You see a friend getting kicked by 3 people when he is down.
You are the designated driver and for some insane reason you decide to bring a gun.
A fight breaks out amongst friends and another group. The other group is stomping your friends.
A. You pull out your gun and start shooting people.
B. You pull out your gun and someone struggles with you to get it, resulting in a misfire death.
C. You end up drinking and decide to take public transport home and decide to act irrationally with the weapon.
D. You enter the fray of the fist fight and B occurs or they take the gun and shoot you or your friend.
E. You call the police who are a few hundred metres away, you are arrested or taken to the police station for carrying a firearm or concealed firearm and are blamed by media for inciting the fight.
YOU actually brought up the idea of a designated gun carrier for groups of people going out into rowdy and violent parts of town. You have literally zero defense of your mind-numbingly stupid proposition beyond "Well, it's legal!"
sKOpe showed all the ways that it could go wrong, and you've not addressed a single one of them. I could think of more, but you hide behind far less likely outcomes as those.
A quick google brings up things like Guns and alcohol: Gun owners drink more and take more risks, study says and Gun ownership, carrying a gun linked to heavy alcohol use. If you want laws that result in LESS DEATH you have to protect people from guns. And you certainly have to protect them from guns mixing with alcohol. So, in any situation where lots of people are going to get drunk, you know what the best gun policy should be? Nobody anywhere near any drunk person has ANY gun.
I don't trust most people to drive, I certainly don't trust them to carry a gun.
Why is this discussion so focused on "self defense" against other humans as if that is the only reason to own a firearm?
For example, the reason why football hooliganism ever existed in the UK is because people DIDN'T have guns. Imagine the same street violence scenes but with added guns. Whelp!
If you have personal responsibility problems and add guns to the mix, people die. It's that simple. If the same problems exist, and guns aren't available, fewer people die.
How about Guns and alcohol: Gun owners drink more and take more risks, study says:
About gun suicides from Guns, Suicides and Natural Experiments: Both of these cite peer reviewed published studies. The conclusion is pretty clear: DO NOT MIX GUNS WITH ALCOHOL AND OTHER PROBLEMS.
We have laws that punish drunk use of automobiles AND we have laws that increase the criminal penalty when a gun is used in conjunction with a crime.