Gawdzilla Sama wrote:B.G. you have a personal definition of "practical purpose" that is constructed specifically to exclude side arms. It's starting to make you look pretty narrow-minded.
As I said earlier, my focus on hand guns is a result of hard data. Hand guns are the problem because they are the ones used for homicide and for suicide in the majority of cases. The data is clear cut.
On hand guns for protecting against bears, the US Wild life Service has already made a clear cut statement opposing hand guns for that purpose, and stating that proper bear spray should be carried, if such a risk is there. Apparently there have already been enough cases of bears opposed by hand guns and bears opposed by bear spray to show that bear spray results in fewer human deaths. http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/bear-spray2.htm
One of the flaws in arguments for hand guns for self defense is the assumption that there is no alternative. Wrong. There are several alternatives. Bear spray against bears. Pepper spray and personal alarms to defend against muggers. Nothing is perfect, of course. A hand gun results in the death of its possessor rather too often, while a personal alarm may not be sufficient to fend off a mugger. But imperfect though they are, alternatives are less harmful overall than hand guns, which kill 20,000 people each year.
The US Wildlife Service can request and suggest that they would prefer people consider not using handguns and use bells and whistles and aerosol capsicum instead, but they can't forbid visitors in the parks from carrying loaded handguns.
A person still has to be responsible and employ safe practices, but they can bring one if they wish.
What your example doesn't tell us is why--assuming it is true--more people die if they use a gun against a bear (Moose and deer can be dangerous too) than those who use the spray.
It could be they are underarmed, bad shot, wait til too late,...........etc.
You can't outrun a bear and the spray is useless if the wind is in your face. That would only provide seasoning for the meal. How convenient of you to be so obliging as to spice yourself up first.
Last edited by Gallstones on Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
Blind groper wrote:Just a point on the Branas study, which showed that those who carry guns are more likely to be shot.
Several of the pro-gun faction in this debate think this finding has been debunked. Not so. The Branas study showed that there is a 450% increase in probability of being shot if you carry a gun. The pro-gun explanation for this is that the gun carriers who get shot are criminals. This is partly true, but only partly. The demographics show some of the carry gun and get shot group are likely to be criminals, but a large fraction are not.
So that argument may serve to lower the figure from 450% to something like 200%. However, even law abiding people who carry guns are more likely to be shot, according to that study. Just that the increased probability is less than 450%.
It would reduce the conclusion to state something like : law abiding people who carry a gun are twice as likely to be shot as law abiding people who do not carry a gun.
Correlation =/= causation. Would a person who thinks they are in danger of being shot at be more or less likely to carry a firearm?
Oh, just in case anyone's wondering, I own one dart/pellet pistol. I've never owned a gun in my adult life, but grew up around them. I have looked down the "Oh shit!" side of a gun carried by a criminal a couple of times. I was less scared of calm criminals than when some body building thug decided to get fightey because he had something to prove.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
Gallstones wrote:
What your example doesn't tell us is why--assuming it is true--more people die if they use a gun against a bear (Moose and deer can be dangerous too) than those who use the spray.
It could be they are underarmed, bad shot, wait til too late,...........etc.
The figures as quoted (actually relating to being mauled, not necessarily killed) is 50% mauled if they use a hand gun versus 2% mauled if they use bear spray. The reason appears to be that a hand gun will not normally kill a bear quickly, which is tougher than a human. The bullet will enrage it, though. However, bear spray will blind it and irritate it severely, giving it something else to worry about than a mere human.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.
I'm reminded of the local story of the two guys and the bear.
Some years ago two buddies were out in the bush when they were attacked by a large brown bear. One of them carried bear spray and the other had a .357 magnum. When the bear charged them and stood up on its hind legs the guy with the .357 shat himself, pissed his pants and froze. The guy with the bear spray promptly thumbed down on the can but the wind was in the wrong direction and he only gave his buddy a face full of capsicum. His buddy, started out of shock by the burning in his face, promptly started firing blind. The bear attacked him and was chewing on his arm when the bearspray-guy picked up the revolver and shot the bear dead.
Gallstones wrote:Handguns are not designed for murder.
Murder is an emotive and misleading term.
What is the definition of murder? Hand guns are most definitely tools for killing humans. They have no other practical purpose. So when does killing a human not become murder?
And please don't warble on about self defense. I have already pointed out that carrying a hand gun increases your risk - making it the opposite of self defense.
It's certainly a major purpose, but not the only one. Target shooting with pistols would be an enjoyable activity, no doubt, and there's nothing wrong in principle with that.
However, when the emotion of enjoying guns becomes joined to a mind-set that civilians need them for self-defence and/or for resisting evil governments, one has a situation that you and I are both glad does not exist in Oz or kiwi land...
JacksSmirkingRevenge wrote:Somehow, I can't see muggers switching to bear spray or rape alarms any time soon.
Edit-
alternatives are less harmful overall than hand guns, which kill 20,000 people each year.
There you go blaming inanimate objects again.
By the logic you're using, we should probably ban dessert spoons too - how many people do they kill/harm each year through obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc?
Man, if I got cancer because my house was made of radon emitting stone and I didn't know it, I would be blaming inanimate objects for my plight.
A masked man who attempted to rob a Las Vegas Dairy Queen with a 3-foot-long samurai sword was shot in the chest and killed by a restaurant clerk, KLAS reports.
(RELATED: Alabama Woman Shoots Home Intruder to Protect Herself and Her Ax- and Knife-Wielding Daughters)
The incident reportedly occurred at around 12:19 p.m. on Sunday. The clerk fired a total of two rounds from a handgun at the would-be robber, according to police.
The suspect, whose identity has not been released yet, was transported to Sunrise Hospital where he was pronounced dead, KLAS reports.
Metro Police Lt. Les Lane tells the Las Vegas-Journal the sword was at least three-feet long.
Authorities say the shooting appears to have been in self-defense but that detectives were investigating whether the gun used was properly registered. No charges have been filed against the clerk at this time.
They say only two employees and no customers were present at the time of the shooting.
Police have also arrested a female in connection to a sword-wielding, masked man who tried to rob the Dairy Queen.
The investigation indicated the suspect had been dropped off in front of the store moments before the crime by a female who was later identified as Carol Matteo
Matteo, who is 47-years-old and resides in Las Vegas, was arrested in connection with this event and has been charged with robbery with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Front page image courtesy of KLAS/Gawker.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:B.G. you have a personal definition of "practical purpose" that is constructed specifically to exclude side arms. It's starting to make you look pretty narrow-minded.
As I said earlier, my focus on hand guns is a result of hard data. Hand guns are the problem because they are the ones used for homicide and for suicide in the majority of cases. The data is clear cut.
On hand guns for protecting against bears, the US Wild life Service has already made a clear cut statement opposing hand guns for that purpose, and stating that proper bear spray should be carried, if such a risk is there. Apparently there have already been enough cases of bears opposed by hand guns and bears opposed by bear spray to show that bear spray results in fewer human deaths. http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/bear-spray2.htm
One of the flaws in arguments for hand guns for self defense is the assumption that there is no alternative. Wrong. There are several alternatives. Bear spray against bears. Pepper spray and personal alarms to defend against muggers. Nothing is perfect, of course. A hand gun results in the death of its possessor rather too often, while a personal alarm may not be sufficient to fend off a mugger. But imperfect though they are, alternatives are less harmful overall than hand guns, which kill 20,000 people each year.
The US Wildlife Service can request and suggest that they would prefer people consider not using handguns and use bells and whistles and aerosol capsicum instead, but they can't forbid visitors in the parks from carrying loaded handguns.
A person still has to be responsible and employ safe practices, but they can bring one if they wish.
What your example doesn't tell us is why--assuming it is true--more people die if they use a gun against a bear (Moose and deer can be dangerous too) than those who use the spray.
It could be they are underarmed, bad shot, wait til too late,...........etc.
You can't outrun a bear and the spray is useless if the wind is in your face. That would only provide seasoning for the meal. How convenient of you to be so obliging as to spice yourself up first.
Besides which, bears are not the only, or indeed the primary reason I carry a gun in national parks. There are plenty of two-legged varmints inhabiting national parks who prey upon people. A series of murders in Yosemite was one of the major forces in getting that law passed. Criminals go to national parks too, in part because (previously) they knew that no one in the park would be armed.
I carry a gun AND bear spray.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
Blind groper wrote:
So that argument may serve to lower the figure from 450% to something like 200%. However, even law abiding people who carry guns are more likely to be shot, according to that study. Just that the increased probability is less than 450%.
And for the rest, as I've stated, reverse causation could be a major factor as well. Rather than it proving that law-abiding people who carry guns are more likely to be shot, it could be proving that law-abiding people who are more likely to be shot are the ones most likely to carry guns. I didn't arbitrarily decide to start carrying guns myself, I started carrying after the shop I work at was cased while I was working alone, which was not long after my younger brother was mugged at knifepoint in the same neighborhood. In my case, my personal risk may be higher because I work in a bad neighborhood, thus as a person who may be more likely to be shot than someone who works in a better neighborhood, I carry a gun. I am at increased risk for sitting where I am sitting right now, not because the revolver on my hip acts as a magic bullet magnet.
