Author Topic: Las Vegas shooting  (Read 4025 times)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #200 on: October 09, 2017, 07:08:46 PM »
There are an awful lot of flaws in trying to nail down the essential question of crime prevention effects of gun possession.

One issue is in assuming that the person who defended themselves with a gun would not also have defended themselves without a gun. Another is assuming that if someone had a gun, that they would have defended themselves when they failed to do so without one.

If someone is bent on creeping up on someone and raping them, I honestly have to question whether a victim is going to have enough warning to draw a weapon and employ it. And, if someone had a situational awareness to go with their gun carrying, would they not be able to employ pepper spray to a similar effectiveness, especially if coupled with a whistle or other non-firearm defenses?

The carry prevention of gun possession would be hard indeed, as the point of concealed carry is to not let on whether you are armed or not. In which case, people not carrying would be as likely to benefit from uncertainty. Exceptions being for areas where someone doesn't have any

Not that any of the statistics in play are about to change anyone's mind. Even if the statistics are very low, people are going to point to the cases that do apply. "Better to carry and not need it" I believe the saying goes. I tend to think that both sides take it more on faith that gun control/gun ownership would make the world safer.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #201 on: October 09, 2017, 10:02:25 PM »
There are more than a few examples out there where concealed carry permit holders were raped because they had the misfortune of being in compliance with "gun free zone" policies at locations such as University campuses.

As someone who proposed gun control regulation earlier, I find unsecured "gun free zones" to be one of the least effective and illogical regulations in existence. The only way I can see declaring an area a gun free zone is somewhere with controlled access with armed security to prevent people from bring guns in. Airports, large sports venues, campaign rallies, etc. I'm fine with any of those being gun free as long as security is provided to ensure they stay gun free, but just declaring a large area with porous boundaries gun free and then assuming you will prevent all gun violence is simply wishful thinking.


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #202 on: October 10, 2017, 09:28:52 AM »
... but just declaring a large area with porous boundaries gun free and then assuming you will prevent all gun violence is simply wishful thinking.
You can expand that area, airports, stadiums, etc are just the smallest areas.  Chicago blamed surrounding areas for just this reason. The US border is as porous as it gets (as drug smugglers and illegal aliens routinely demonstrate). Declaring the entire nation a gun free zone will have exactly the same impact as declaring a single event gun free - virtually none.

Even if we were somehow to magically confiscate every gun in private hands across the entire world, it would still be wishful thinking. The bottom line is nobody is actually anti-gun. The disagreement over guns is who gets to have them. Some only want the state to have them so that governments can easily impose their will. Others think everyone should have access to them so even individuals can defend themselves. But there will be guns and those guns will always leak out to the individual.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #203 on: October 10, 2017, 02:22:31 PM »
I'm less wiling to let slide the "stranger" statistic.  We should be clear, that this is not just covering the assault on the street situation.  It literally covers every bar hookup where the two people don't know each other, are drunk, and a sexual assault occurs.

I think the statistics count that as an acquaintance for the statistics.

Quote
Well like I said, your 80k is overstated, and without adjusting for the fact that many many assaults even with strangers are not situations where anyone is going to reasonably be carrying, the idea that your point has much merit is questionable.

You can feel free to make adjustments to the numbers - cut them in half if you like.  The point is that it is an essentially useless defense against rape.

Quote
Literal nonsense.  In many cases, violent crimes are not furious flashes.  Often times, people are aware they are being followed, the person confronts them first, in many cases the ambush is not ideal.  They can be interrupted.

It is extremely rare for those not on drugs to do things that make it obvious their intentions to mug someone.  Movies do dramatically staged obvious mugging scenes so that you can see what is going on and anticipate it.  Real muggers tend to want surprise on their side and know their territory.

Quote
Certainly possible that even with a gun you won't have a chance.  Of course, if you don't have gun you've foreclosed every single situation where it would have made a difference, and gained literally nothing.  We already know that it's virtually the only effect form of defense against an armed person, and we know there are no other ways to consistently balance a gross strength imbalance that is also incredibly common in such a situation.

You aren't balancing the risk of getting mugged and successfully defending yourself against just the risk of getting mugged and not having a gun.  You also have to balance it against the the risk of shooting an innocent stranger by mistake; against the risk of your kids finding the gun and hurting themselves or another; against the risk of suicide; the risk of you having a temporary moment of rage and killing someone you love out of anger; etc.

When you take other factors into account - it is almost certain that you are on balance much less safe owning a gun than you are with owning a gun.

Quote
Not to mention, you've completely discounted virtually all non-random situations, where a carrier may be on a higher alert status and actively looking to avoid risky situations.

I completely agree that there are a subset of circumstances that it is rational to have a gun - I was talking about personal ownership for 'self defense' - not usage in professional situations when transporting large sums of money for a business or security for a high profile individual; etc.


Quote
Nice opinion.  I recommend people have both if they live in area where it's needed.  But security is only as effective as local police response times and how easy it is to bypass.  Dogs can and have been incapacitated.  Very few dogs, intentionally, are conditioned to immediate attack a human in a way that would be useful.  Both systems actually serve as a very good way to alert yourself to get your gun.

Dogs aren't for attack purposes - those that are trained to do so are almost certain to be a greater risk than they are a benefit.  Barking is sufficient to chase off nearly all B&E and home invasions.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 02:27:08 PM by LetterRip »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #204 on: October 10, 2017, 08:11:17 PM »
I'm less wiling to let slide the "stranger" statistic.  We should be clear, that this is not just covering the assault on the street situation.  It literally covers every bar hookup where the two people don't know each other, are drunk, and a sexual assault occurs.

I think the statistics count that as an acquaintance for the statistics.

Can you provide a citation for that?   What percentage involve alcohol, and situations where reasonable people wouldn't go armed?

Quote
Quote
Well like I said, your 80k is overstated, and without adjusting for the fact that many many assaults even with strangers are not situations where anyone is going to reasonably be carrying, the idea that your point has much merit is questionable.

You can feel free to make adjustments to the numbers - cut them in half if you like.  The point is that it is an essentially useless defense against rape.

By the way you're using the metric, you know what else is an "essentially" useless defense against rape?  The police.  Pretty much every defense other than the ones we label as moralizing are useless.

Honestly, cut it however you like, the only useful metric would be how often armed women are successfully sexually assaulted versus how often they are not compared to how often unarmed women are successfully sexually assaulted versus how often they are not.  Is that a metric that you have access to?

Quote
It is extremely rare for those not on drugs to do things that make it obvious their intentions to mug someone.  Movies do dramatically staged obvious mugging scenes so that you can see what is going on and anticipate it.  Real muggers tend to want surprise on their side and know their territory.

If you say so.  Most of the people I know who've been mugged report the opposite.  People that act strange, that strike up conversations before they mugged them.  Some have had the snatch and dash ambushes you describe.  What's the basis for this claim of yours?

But again, so what?  Seat belts don't save your life in every crash but they are still a great idea.

Quote
You aren't balancing the risk of getting mugged and successfully defending yourself against just the risk of getting mugged and not having a gun.  You also have to balance it against the the risk of shooting an innocent stranger by mistake; against the risk of your kids finding the gun and hurting themselves or another; against the risk of suicide; the risk of you having a temporary moment of rage and killing someone you love out of anger; etc.

So pretty much I'm balancing it against things that are completely in my control.  There are like nearly 300 million guns not involved in an accident or in the harming of any people out there every day.

Quote
When you take other factors into account - it is almost certain that you are on balance much less safe owning a gun than you are with owning a gun.

Literally no.  You're playing with stats, correlations that have no bearing in the evaluation of any specific person.  There's lots of fake "facts" that can be shown if you refer to the "average" person.

Quote
Quote
Not to mention, you've completely discounted virtually all non-random situations, where a carrier may be on a higher alert status and actively looking to avoid risky situations.

I completely agree that there are a subset of circumstances that it is rational to have a gun - I was talking about personal ownership for 'self defense' - not usage in professional situations when transporting large sums of money for a business or security for a high profile individual; etc.

Why do you think most people carry?  Most every concealed carrier I know has a reason they carry.


Quote
Dogs aren't for attack purposes - those that are trained to do so are almost certain to be a greater risk than they are a benefit.  Barking is sufficient to chase off nearly all B&E and home invasions.

Yeah I already said that about the dog.  Lots of things are generally "sufficient" to chase off "nearly" all B&E.  You seem to be fixated on trying to demonstrate that on an average day and average person is not in need of fighting off a home invader.  Like wow.  I already pointed out, being the victim of a violent crime even twice in your life is less common than not.

If you want me to consider that there is some non-zero set of events where having a gun makes no difference, then you should acknowledge, there is some non-zero set of events where having a gun is the only thing that makes a difference.  Once we do that, it's nothing but a claim that your personal opinion is more valid than someone else's about whether they need to defend themselves.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #205 on: November 07, 2017, 04:45:02 PM »
There are an awful lot of flaws in trying to nail down the essential question of crime prevention effects of gun possession.

One issue is in assuming that the person who defended themselves with a gun would not also have defended themselves without a gun. Another is assuming that if someone had a gun, that they would have defended themselves when they failed to do so without one.

So how about what resolved this latest mass shooting event, where the shooter was confronted by a former NRA instructor who is unaffiliated with Law Enforcement?

Of course, this latest shooting is even more complex because existing laws SHOULD have stopped it before it happened, but the Air Force screwed up.

Also on the irony note: From the account attributed to that "good Samaritan with a rifle" it can also be inferred that if his rifle had NOT been locked away in a gun safe, he probably would have been able to intervene earlier.