There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.
The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.
For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm.
So this is where I make a big deal about you using strawmans, and all that. At this point it's clear you can't handle any sort of nuance of multidimensional considerations for how guns can be used defensively without actually shooting someone, that the "alternate" forms of self defense are irrelevant because it isn't incumbent on the victim to scale their defense to match that of the offender. Of course you MIGHT be able to defend your family with a fire poker... but if the intruder has a gun, you're probably going to die. Even if the intruder only has a club, the force differential is minimal and he will likely try to fight you... meaning a high chance you're going to get beat up or worse. When you have a gun, and make it known to the intruder... they may flee with no harm to anyone. Even if they have a gun, you at least have a chance to meet that threat. If you can't see that firearms are the ultimate way for a potential victim to ensure they are at LEAST on even ground with an intruder, then you're being dishonest or are ignoring it for your own agenda.
At this point it's clear you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse and are putting words in my mouth... you offer no solutions or even real opinions, and try to freak out and claim the high ground by calling any attempt to pin you down on something as a "straw man." Anyway, you seem stuck on simplistic thoughts and responses so trying to discuss this complex issue with you in particular is a time-waster I won't engage in any longer.
I think what MasterStache is trying to say is that using a firearm to defend your property does not cancel out an innocent person being murdered with a firearm. You seem to be making the assumption that any criminal that a firearm owner interacts with is planning to murder you, so any defensive gun use counts as a saved life in your book. While I don't have the data to back it up, my guess would be that he's right. In fact, I think some defensive gun uses could lead to more unnecessary loss of life. For instance, a robber breaking in to steal a TV with no intent to murder anyone being killed in the process is still one more life lost to firearms. Sure, it's more justifiable because he was committing a crime at the time of his death, but it's still an unnecessary loss of life. So I don't think you can say one defensive use of a firearm equals one life saved and therefore as long as there are more defensive gun uses than innocents murdered firearms are a net benefit.
Yeah, I get what MS is saying. The problem is, MS is
not comprehending what I did actually say. I never said that one DGU=1life saved. I do, and still make the assertion, that for everyone case where someone has been killed, there are as many or more cases where lives were saved. For every robbery at gunpoint, there are as many or more prevented with a firearm. If you look at CDC figures for DGUs, even the LOW end estimates bear this out. Ergo, they are a net benefit. I've been going back and forth with MS about this for a while, but that individual I think, realizes what I am
actually saying is correct... but decided to purposely misunderstand it so they can defeat a bad argument that I didn't make.
The latest post was me refuting this nonsense that "DGUs don't matter because they could have defended themselves other ways." I was merely explaining that in a case where someone is intending physical harm, having a gun can at least put you on equal footing with the assailant... so it does infact weigh in favor of firearms. I also know that when you point out that a good portion of the murders, assaults, robberies, etc would happen with other weapons if guns weren't available, that's dismissed because "guns let them do it so much more effectively." It works that way for defense, too.
Yep, pretty much! Apparently now it has evolved into you are probably going to die during an armed home invasion. Like GuitarStv said, fear sells. It doesn't have to be based on reality or even logical (defending yourself from a government).
For someone so quick to claim people were using 'strawmen' against them earlier in the thread, you sure are quick to throw up strawmen now. You're clearly trolling. You bold 1 sentence to hide the context it was in... which was if you try to defend yourself from an intruder intending to harm you who has a firearm, using a fire poker... yeah, you're probably going to loose. that is not a statement that I think you are probably going to die in an armed home invasion.
I'm definitely not arguing that the risk hasn't increased, it has. I'm arguing that the risk does not justify the emotion and fear that it has created. Going back to the beginning of this, the only reason I said anything was that several comments gave the idea that active shooter training in schools is a necessity and that in turn kids are scared and upset. I think the psychological cost outweighs the potential benefit.
Some people don't have to argue it... they use data to show that the current risk is lower than at any point since the early 1990s... (but that with the Parkland shooting 2018 might be a year that upsets the trend.)
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/I googled this guy, and I can't seem to find anything to refute or change the context of this data. (except the "everytown" stuff, but they use a really misleading definition of school shooting to drive a pre-formed conclusion.)
Average deaths per year per million students, 1992 through 2000 school years: .30
Average deaths per year per million students, 2001 through 2007: .11
Average deaths per year per million students, 2008 through 2014 school years: .11
This is a good example of why I realize both sides aren’t going to come together any time soon. You really don’t understand why we are frustrated and want change. I do realize the odds are good my kid won’t be in a shooting situation. However, the drills and gun incidents elsewhere (there was actually a local elementary school blocks from our home where a kid brought a parent’s gun to school, and it’s very much still a topic of conversation around the school yard) are traumatizing on a different level. It makes our kids feel less safe in school, and feeds the anxiety beast that is already a problem in schools today.
You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)
Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.
I don't intend to minimize the impact that the current level of school shootings has, but I do mean to counter this fear narrative from the left that they're getting drastically worse, and that the solution is restricting guns significantly. I also mean to say that the ramping up attention, the drills, assemblies, the constant attention on the issue is at best, creating excessive fear and at worse, might be contributing to it by keeping it at the forefront of the minds of individuals who might be inclined to do something like that.
Stopping the gun incidents is a whole lot more than just worrying your kid might end up dead. This is also why I oppose more cops in schools or arming more people there. Once again, it doesn’t do anything to solve the issue, but does make school seem like a scarier place.
I was fully on board with more police in schools until I saw data showing that all it did was turn common youthful indiscretions into life ruining criminal charges, and had no discernible effect on school shootings... so I'm coming around on this one.
I realize there are gun owners who support change. Unfortunately, most of them seem willing to accept *some* things, but only under duress if it has to happen. There will be zero encouraging politicians to support them. Which leaves only the gun control side asking for change. And the politicians continue to dance around the issue because the damn second amendment and fear of the gun owners who won’t accept anything but easier access to guns.
Most gun owners I know seem more than willing to accept some things that will make a difference, but not the symbolic, ineffective, or unreasonably onerous things some propose.