Guns as the great equalizer

Post Reply New Topic

I'll admit, I don't drive, nor am I american, so perhaps that colors my perception. I want to stress, I'm not against guns; I own two myself. But do you disagree with the idea that gun ownership should come with a responsibility to know what you're doing?

It comes with an implied responsibility and that alone is enough for me. It's not something I want the goverment f*****g with any more than they aleady do. Really, if responsibility and crimes with guns were as bad as some make it out to be the streets would be running red with blood.

Intuitively false, and certainly not obviously true. Guns project force, more guns provide more opportunity for use of force, and humans are not always rational enough to ensure mutual deterrence. Shooting stats from other countries arguably bear this out.

True.

I may agree with your conclusion, but the issue is more two-sided than you make it out to be. More guns has a down-side as well as an up-side.

Personally, I believe that if the constitution says it is important that everyone be allowed to have guns, then the government do the financial and organizational work necessary to ensure everyone is trained for responsible gun ownership. Then at least we could minimize the down-side.

I will stick with my bullet repelling bracelets.

Facebook Like 1

That's my kind of
woman;

And yes, they
are hard to find;

But good to find as hard..

Guns aren't so much of an equalizer I don't think. It comes down to personality and skill. They are just a tool.

But, what a tool! A cranky old woman without a firearm is just a cranky old woman. But, women are notably better shots than men (see Annie Oakley). Give a firearm to the cranky old woman, and she could defend herself better than most men of any age.

But, again, DGU statistics suggest that just the introduction of a firearm (no shots fired) to the interaction of a threatening thug and a victim is, most of the time, the one factor that convinces the thug to run away. That advantage is huge when the firearm is owned and used by a woman or another individual with physical limitations.

I AGREE!!

I suppose it might be a valid point. I'm sure there are individual cases where this is true.

Even still the old woman doesn't actually have that good of a chance if a mob of gangsters comes to her house with guns demanding money. She'd be best off just giving them the money and letting the police do their job afterward. If it is a single individual who is trying to rape her, yes, the gun might come in handy.

Even still, I think it's a little bit naive to think that giving someone a gun is actually going to protect them. Sometimes yes, often times no. The aggressor always has the advantage due to stealth.

We'd be best off trying to find creative ways to reduce violent behaviors rather than passing more gun control laws. Sadly as leftist I am, I have to admit the OP makes a valid point.

Earlier today, I posted this:

This is a good example of DGUs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... Sy824I_gr4

This is a good example of slapstick humor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... KoZJ3mp5Tk

They appear to belie the notion that seniors, even if armed, are easy prey.

That second video is funny.

I have to admit the first video is exactly the reason I said the OP had a valid point. Even still I have to wonder what we would be saying about this video if the robbers fought back rather than fled. It is really wise to be shooting at a pair of armed robbers in a crowded room? These robbers did not seem to have any intention to kill.

Sometimes yes, the gun is necessary, other times it is actually safer to let them do their robbing. It really depends on the situation. This time the man is a hero, another time he might be the catalyst for murder.

In the state in which both of us reside, we are more likely to be shot by a cop.

Also, we have a curious (unless you think about it) set of laws governing how firearms can be used in self defense.

If a life is in immediate danger, you can shoot a person to death and fully expect to face no charges. This happens infrequently enough that it is notable when it happens, but it happens. For example, a few weeks ago when a bystander shot and killed an apparent carjacker at the Macy's on 8th north in Orem.

You cannot, however, brandish a weapon.

Or communicate in any way the presence of a weapon on your person or within your reach.

Specifically you cannot verbally state that you have a gun.

Because guns are for putting holes in things at a distance. They are piss-poor negotiating tools.

Statistics suggest that the presence of a firearm in any human interaction increases the probability that someone will die.

Interestingly, that probability increases even more if one of the people present is a cop.

indeed, just meant that pushing the hammer or dropping it on the hammer wouldn't make it go off, same with dropping other guns.

if you wait long enough to be sure of their intent its too late.

" yep they have guns to our head and are about to shoot us, we know they going kill us now." is too late to do anything.
its relatively safe to assume people with guns holding up a place are prepared to shoot people. just like if someone breaks into a occupied house they aren't prepared to hurt people to get what they want. people who don't' will stake out a place and wait til they are sure everyone has left to break in.

but by all means wait til you have a bullet in you to decide to defend yourself. under the law if they have a weapon they have the capability of lethal force, most states don't require you to prove intent. thats for lawer. just like a woman being dragged into a bush doesn't have to wait to see if the guy is just going rape her or kill her.

weapon in hand shows intent to do harm. they are ready to harm you to get what they want. means you can defend yourself.

\

Yeah, but that's exactly the thing. This guy in the video made a terrible ass shot that probably barely injured the robber at all. If the robber really wanted to kill that guy he probably f*****g could have. These robbers had a terrible ass strategy and were terribly f*****g chicken. If they wanted to kill people they could have. And I get what you're saying, you don't know before it's too late, but that guy didn't do s**t in the video. He shot one bullet that barely even injured the robber If those robbers were intent to kill they would have. Most armed robbers really do not actually want to kill. I just have a hard time defending this citizen's action. It seems impulsive and illogical. There are two robbers, and there is only one of him. How is his shooting off one terribly placed shot going to help the situation? He was lucky, not a hero in my opinion.