2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:...and anti-gunners tend to use cases of extremely irrational individuals. I guess both sides tend to stick with what they know.
Irrational societies, actually. It just means putting the overall homicide rates at a higher priority than letting people give themselves a feeling of control at the expense of others. Same reason why people get mad at anti-vaxxers, essentially.
1 hour ago, Punning Pundit said:Sure. But it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That's why mass stabbings don't have the same body counts as mass shootings.
Okay. But you still have dead people and your example is not the most devastating alternative to fire arms. If someone wants to do harm, a weapon ban is of little help.
14 minutes ago, JJ48 said:Well, considering there have been several mentions of the Jacksonville incident, and people keep bringing up murderous carriers looking for any excuse to start shooting, you can understand why some might get the impression that the primary fear was of intentional violence.
You're talking about different types of laws, though. Laws such as those against domestic violence or theft aren't meant to prevent the crimes; rather they are in place to allow justice to be taken against actions that are inherently undesirable. A law against murder won't prevent the murder, but it means that when a murder takes place, justice can be imposed upon the murderer. Without such a law, what could society do to a murderer?
Other laws are against things that are not undesirable in themselves, but are meant to regulate actions to prevent some other, undesirable potential. For instance, there's nothing undesirable about someone simply having a gun on them; rather, the undesirable bit is it being used when it doesn't need to be.
Living in an armed society is undesirable because then people use guns.
This* was totally legal until someone started actually shooting. Because Florida is an armed society. Had they lived in an unarmed society like Japan or England, they would have both survived the encounter.
You are right: I don't know who is a rational person with a concealed weapon and who is an irrational person with a concealed weapon. That's why I want all the deadly weapons left at home.
Unless you're at a shooting range or are hunting. In that case, I'll join you.
2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:Okay. But you still have dead people and your example is not the most devastating alternative to fire arms. If someone wants to do harm, a weapon ban is of little help.
Many fewer dead people, tho. Like that mass stabbing in a Chinese elementary school the same day as Sandy Hook. No one died because guns are way deadlier than knives.
Just now, SabineKey said:Okay. But you still have dead people and your example is not the most devastating alternative to fire arms. If someone wants to do harm, a weapon ban is of little help.
On the contrary, and thanks to the US for providing a good benchmark to measure from, they're pretty much universally helpful. Any meaningful barrier you can add to make it harder to perform deadly violence will save thousands of lives, there's very little to doubt it. Obviously if you have one instance of someone really, really wanting to do it then fine, but for each one of those you'll have plenty more who find time to cool off, find the alternative methods too much or are able to be stopped.
Obviously if personal freedoms matter more to you than any other outcome none of that matters, but you can't really dress it up any other way.
1 minute ago, Punning Pundit said:Many fewer dead people, tho. Like that mass stabbing in a Chinese elementary school the same day as Sandy Hook. No one died because guns are way deadlier than knives.
And what about explosives? Chemicals?
1 minute ago, __underscore__ said:On the contrary, and thanks to the US for providing a good benchmark to measure from, they're pretty much universally helpful. Any meaningful barrier you can add to make it harder to perform deadly violence will save thousands of lives, there's very little to doubt it. Obviously if you have one instance of someone really, really wanting to do it then fine, but for each one of those you'll have plenty more who find time to cool off, find the alternative methods too much or are able to be stopped.
Obviously if personal freedoms matter more to you than any other outcome none of that matters, but you can't really dress it up any other way.
I wouldn’t say personal freedoms mean more than anything else as they can be changed and redefined so easily. I’m more interested in effective solutions. I also have a low opinion of humanity, with bannings of weapons only really working on people who care about the law.
Would you happen to know of any studies on how many “crimes of passion” weapon bannings have stopped?
29 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:And if it isn't? Does it then make sense to ban weapons from game events?
An interesting distinction, but I would still say no. When we were looking at it as a matter of malevolence, part of my argument was that the people obeying the rules would tend to be the non-malevolent ones anyway, while the malevolent ones would likely ignore the rules, meaning that any such rule would be stripping out the people who aren't a problem while leaving those who are. I think a similar argument works here. As someone (I think it was Darth Meanie) pointed out, some people will break the rules simply because they feel they can. I am of the opinion that the people who intentionally break such rules are more likely to be the ones who would also break other, common-sense rules of gun safety, and are therefore more likely to be the problem we don't want to begin with; whereas those who obey the rules are more likely to be the ones who wouldn't be a problem anyway, so again the rule would be getting rid of some players without actually addressing the problem.
Also, as someone else pointed out, people who break such a rule are unlikely to be discovered unless an incident occurs, at which point it is too late. No, if companies want to keep firearms out of their events, they really need a metal detector or something that can be more proactive, otherwise it's still rather pointless.
4 minutes ago, SabineKey said:And what about explosives? Chemicals?
16 minutes ago, SabineKey said:And what about explosives? Chemicals?
Let's keep those away from toy store, too.
2 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:Let's keep those away from toy store, too.
Not my point, but it doesn’t really matter. We are talking past each other and neither is convinced by each other’s points. I would like to say good day, sir, and wish you luck in your next game.
6 minutes ago, JJ48 said:An interesting distinction, but I would still say no. When we were looking at it as a matter of malevolence, part of my argument was that the people obeying the rules would tend to be the non-malevolent ones anyway, while the malevolent ones would likely ignore the rules, meaning that any such rule would be stripping out the people who aren't a problem while leaving those who are. I think a similar argument works here. As someone (I think it was Darth Meanie) pointed out, some people will break the rules simply because they feel they can. I am of the opinion that the people who intentionally break such rules are more likely to be the ones who would also break other, common-sense rules of gun safety, and are therefore more likely to be the problem we don't want to begin with[...]
So we agree: a no gun rule makes it easier to tell the difference between a safe person and an unsafe person. And if we spot a gun in a non gun area, we should feet safe in assuming that they're dangerous, and can kick them out without further debate.
I'm glad we found this common ground.
32 minutes ago, SabineKey said:Would you happen to know of any studies on how many “crimes of passion” weapon bannings have stopped?
It's nigh-on impossible to track crimes that haven't happened, you can only really compare the rates at places with permissive and strict controls on weapons, really.
45 minutes ago, SabineKey said:And what about explosives? Chemicals?
They also generally have pretty strict controls in place.
34 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:So we agree: a no gun rule makes it easier to tell the difference between a safe person and an unsafe person. And if we spot a gun in a non gun area, we should feet safe in assuming that they're dangerous, and can kick them out without further debate.
I'm glad we found this common ground.
It makes it easier to tell the difference only if you have some way of figuring out they've got a gun prior to its use, as I stated in my previous post, though you seem to have missed it.
I can't believe this thread, why the **** are people taking any kind of weapon to a place that they are playing a game for fun? If you honestly believe it's a good idea to take a gun to an X-Wing (or any gaming) event then I feel really sorry for you; If you are that scared of your fellow humans then you need therapy (anxiety therapist really help with that kind of thing).
You've just beaten a guy, you devastated him. He had a string of bad games since he got to the tournament, the tournament which was to be the only highlight of his month and here you are in his last game, destroying him with a set of perfect maneuvers and lucky dice rolls.
He's angry, his anger subtly turns violent, you extend your hand over the table for a GG handshake.
a) He has a firearm on his person. Unlike his x-wing skills his skills with a fire arm are perfectly aqueduct. You die. It doesn't matter if you are armed or not, he has the aggressors advantage and you are in a compromising position. You may be very confident in your speed of draw, but so it he and he doesn't need to worry about the delay of human reaction.
b) His gun is in the car. He stomps out of the building, ignoring your handshake and leaving all his space ships on the table. You're an intelligent person, you know what MIGHT go down next. There are now a million and one ways for you to survive, you could move into a position to get the drop on him with a tackle if he does walk in with a gun, you could abscond to the toilet, maybe someone else will stop him or maybe he'll have cooled off by the time he gets to the car, maybe he'll have a smoke instead.
c) You are in a different country, neither of you even own a small semiautomatic firearm, they're illegal. He punches you. Oh no.
Any rule makes b) slightly more likely than a) is a good deal in my books.
11 minutes ago, CMDR Kastor said:You've just beaten a guy, you devastated him. He had a string of bad games since he got to the tournament, the tournament which was to be the only highlight of his month and here you are in his last game, destroying him with a set of perfect maneuvers and lucky dice rolls.
He's angry, his anger subtly turns violent, you extend your hand over the table for a GG handshake.a) He has a firearm on his person. Unlike his x-wing skills his skills with a fire arm are perfectly aqueduct. You die. It doesn't matter if you are armed or not, he has the aggressors advantage and you are in a compromising position. You may be very confident in your speed of draw, but so it he and he doesn't need to worry about the delay of human reaction.
b) His gun is in the car. He stomps out of the building, ignoring your handshake and leaving all his space ships on the table. You're an intelligent person, you know what MIGHT go down next. There are now a million and one ways for you to survive, you could move into a position to get the drop on him with a tackle if he does walk in with a gun, you could abscond to the toilet, maybe someone else will stop him or maybe he'll have cooled off by the time he gets to the car, maybe he'll have a smoke instead.
c) You are in a different country, neither of you even own a small semiautomatic firearm, they're illegal. He punches you. Oh no.
Any rule makes b) slightly more likely than a) is a good deal in my books.
Wow. And people call concealed carriers paranoid.
Have you ever considered just not living in constant fear toward your fellow Man?
4 minutes ago, JJ48 said:Have you ever considered just not living in constant fear toward your fellow Man ?
Like, in not carrying around a firearm by your side wherever you go just in case a fellow Man turns out to be such a threat to you you'd opt to kill them?
21 minutes ago, JJ48 said:Have you ever considered just not living in constant fear toward your fellow Man?
Yeah.
I live in Chicago. Yes, that Chicago.
I don't even own a gun, let alone feel the need to carry one to an X-wing tournament, grocery store, movie theater, or restaurant, "just in case."
You can play catch-up anytime you like.
Edited by Darth Meanie3 hours ago, SabineKey said:Okay. But you still have dead people and your example is not the most devastating alternative to fire arms. If someone wants to do harm, a weapon ban is of little help.
Just FYI, there's some good data saying that this is wrong. Many firearm killings (including suicide) happen on impulse. Restricting an easily avilable option brings that down massively. Example off the top of my head: Suicides in Switzerland dropped crazy after our army issued rifles had to be bought after service finished, and after ammunition was not mandatorily given home anymore.
The initial hurdle is important.
e: and btw, I have an army issued automatic rifle and a pistol at home. I enjoy shooting, and I have to do it yearly. I do not understand how a weapon at home makes me more safe instead of immediately escalating situations.
Edited by GreenDragoon4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:Just FYI, there's some good data saying that this is wrong. Many firearm killings (including suicide) happen on impulse. Restricting an easily avilable option brings that down massively. Example off the top of my head: Suicides in Switzerland dropped crazy after our army issued rifles had to be bought after service finished, and after ammunition was not mandatorily given home anymore.
The initial hurdle is important.
e: and btw, I have an army issued automatic rifle and a pistol at home. I enjoy shooting, and I have to do it yearly. I do not understand how a weapon at home makes me more safe instead of immediately escalating situations.
I will accept the impulse argument. However, until you can prove to me that someone intent on premeditated harm is warded off by a no weapon policy, I do not accept that my assertion is entirely wrong. If you’ve got the data, I would like to see it. If you do not, then let me leave this mire behind.
This is an extremely poor place and setting for this discussion and I shouldn’t have gotten involved because all I see on both sides are people firm in their beliefs wasting everyone’s time, theirs included.
4 hours ago, Punning Pundit said:Many fewer dead people, tho. Like that mass stabbing in a Chinese elementary school the same day as Sandy Hook. No one died because guns are way deadlier than knives.
4 hours ago, SabineKey said:And what about explosives? Chemicals?
Punning Pundit: You should wear your seatbelt while driving a car.
SabineKey: Why? Most plane crashes are fatal.
2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:
Punning Pundit: You should wear your seatbelt while driving a car.
SabineKey: Why? Most plane crashes are fatal.
Again, you miss the point I was getting to. And because of your behavior, I have no interest in re-explaining it because it would just be a waste of both of our time.
4 minutes ago, SabineKey said:I will accept the impulse argument. However, until you can prove to me that someone intent on premeditated harm is warded off by a no weapon policy, I do not accept that my assertion is entirely wrong. If you’ve got the data, I would like to see it. If you do not, then let me leave this mire behind.
This is an extremely poor place and setting for this discussion and I shouldn’t have gotten involved because all I see on both sides are people firm in their beliefs wasting everyone’s time, theirs included.
I'm really not sure who here argues about or even accepts the occurrence of premeditated harm by firearm. It is a numbers game. If the likelihood of such an event is low enough then the potential benefit of a concealed carrying hero is much much lower than all the accidents.
Clearly firearm accidents in general are much more frequent than premeditated harm by firearm at a game store. Arguably the difference is so large that even a concealed carrying hero at every single premeditated game store shooting (which is not necessarily the case now) does not justify the combined risk of accidents and impulse shootings. I wonder why we disagree.
2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:I'm really not sure who here argues about or even accepts the occurrence of premeditated harm by firearm. It is a numbers game. If the likelihood of such an event is low enough then the potential benefit of a concealed carrying hero is much much lower than all the accidents.
Clearly firearm accidents in general are much more frequent than premeditated harm by firearm at a game store. Arguably the difference is so large that even a concealed carrying hero at every single premeditated game store shooting (which is not necessarily the case now) does not justify the combined risk of accidents and impulse shootings. I wonder why we disagree.
I thank you for the article, but it is a clear example of us meaning two different things and speaking past each other. Hence why I think this is a waste of time.
I’m not trying to say I have all the answers. But I have yet to meet someone else that does.
I will take what you have said into consideration.