[DrCaleb]

Strutz Strutz:

SprCForr SprCForr:

I feel so sad for those people. To go around in life that afraid.

Terrible.

They probably don't even have any scissors in the house so that their children could never run with them.

*sniff* That was one of my fondest childhood memories. Running with scissors. *sniff*

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But I thought an armed citizenry is supposed to reduce crime? The fact that tasers are non-lethal should make them even more effective in having the general public taking down criminals in the act, shouldn't it?

I don't think so. If you make something non lethal people tend to resort to them to end problems. When the police were given them they tended to use force more often than they did before. After all it's non lethal, what's the harm?

If your only option is to kill another human, most people don't go to that option as fast, in most situations.

$1:

That's the logic that CCW advocates are backing.

It's close to the argument being made, but it's short on a few important details.

It's similar to giving a sentance of life in jail, rather than death. If you were wrong you can let the person go, so why not convict.

If you give people an option that causes less harm most people will use that option far more than a much more harmful option.

Further I think people would be more willing to push their luck if all the knew they were not facing their own death as a very likely outcome.

If someone tried to rob me with a taser, they would very likely need to tase me to rob me. Someone trying to rob me with a pistol they stand a much greater chance of not needing to shoot me to rob me.

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

Lemmy Lemmy:

But I thought an armed citizenry is supposed to reduce crime? The fact that tasers are non-lethal should make them even more effective in having the general public taking down criminals in the act, shouldn't it?

I don't think so. If you make something non lethal people tend to resort to them to end problems. When the police were given them they tended to use force more often than they did before. After all it's non lethal, what's the harm?

If your only option is to kill another human, most people don't go to that option as fast, in most situations.

I'm confused. If people will use the taser more readily, doesn't that make tasers a better CCW weapon in reducing crime? The gun nuts want us to believe they should be allowed to carry so they can Clint Eastwood the fuck out of any shithead who attempts to commit a crime. If the argument for CCW of guns is valid, and people are MORE likely to use a less-lethal but equally decapacitating weapon, we should test it out, shouldn't we? But if arming people with tasers, which you claim would be used more readily, doesn't reduce the crime rate, that's pretty strong evidence against allowing the CCW of firearms, isn't it? It'd be curious to learn the results of such an experiment.

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I'm confused. If people will use the taser more readily, doesn't that make tasers a better CCW weapon in reducing crime?

Depends on what you mean by use.

You can use a gun to protect yourself by holding it, showing someone you are armed stops most crimes from happening.

If you show someone you have a taser I doubt that is going to do much to get them to leave you alone, given that it's a non lethal weapon.

$1:

The gun nuts

I don't call people that are against CCW or firearms for personal defense names, so why don't you stop with the name calling while we talk about this like adults?

$1:

want us to believe they should be allowed to carry so they Clint Eastwood the fuck out of any shithead who attempts to commit a crime.

Basicly correct.

$1:

If the argument for CCW of guns is valid, and people are MORE likely to use a less-lethal but equally decapacitating weapon, we should test it out, shouldn't we?

Yes to the bat lab lets start this test... FOR SCIENCE.

$1:

But if arming people with tasers, which you claim would be used more readily, doesn't reduce the crime rate, that's pretty strong evidence against allowing the CCW of firearms, isn't it?

No it's strong evidence for not using a taser for protection.

$1:

It'd be curious to learn the results of such an experiment.

I think you will find that tasers are not a good way to defend yourself.

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

$1:

The gun nuts

I don't call people that are against CCW or firearms for personal defense names, so why don't you stop with the name calling while we talk about this like adults?

Fuck you. Gun nuts, I say.

Xort Xort:

I think you will find that tasers are not a good way to defend yourself.

Who cares? We're not talking about their use for self-defence. We're talking about their use in fighting crime by citizens. If one asshole pulls a gun in a bank, and the other 40 people in the bank have tasers, what happens? Does everyone drop their taser or do they gang up on him? What happens if those 40 people had guns instead? What happens? What's your hypothesis?

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

If one asshole pulls a gun in a bank, and the other 40 people in the bank have tasers, what happens?

the funky chicken or the bacon dance

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Fuck you. Gun nuts, I say.

Who cares? We're not talking about their use for self-defence. We're talking about their use in fighting crime by citizens.

Self defence is the most common and I think justified use of a weapon. Most often people use weapons to defend themself from criminals so self defence is mostly stopping criminals.

$1:

If one asshole pulls a gun in a bank, and the other 40 people in the bank have tasers, what happens? Does everyone drop their taser or do they gang up on him? What happens if those 40 people had guns instead? What happens? What's your hypothesis?

The one asshole that has a gun still has a fair chance of badly hurting or killing someone even if they are tasered 40 times. I also don't think that someone with a gun is going to back down to someone with a taser, so the taser owner is going to need to shoot to do something. Which takes away one way to end the conflict without getting hurt, which is to draw a gun on the other guy when he isn't looking then inform him that he's dead if he moves and plase drop your weapon.

If you had 40 people each with their own gun, I think you have a much better chance of having the situation end with out anyone being hurt. But I will admit a fair risk of people being shot and killed.

The last situation that you didn't layout is what happens when someone pulls a gun out and no one else is armed. I think what happens depends on how the criminal wants to operate. I don't think most successful bank robbers go out of their way to draw attention to themself. So to stand up and says: "All right, everybody be cool, this is a robbery! Any of you fucking pricks move, and I'll execute every motherfucking last one of ya!" But if they did I don't think you have a good chance of people getting out unhurt, or getting to keep your boss's glowing briefcase.

The smart move would be to talk to a staff member and say, "I have a gun, here it is, be cool lets get the money and no one gets hurt."
~
The counter argument to your situation of 40 people having a gun what happens is; What criminal tries to rob a place that has 40 armed people in it by himself? A very dumb one that stands a good chance to soon to be a very dead one.

What happens when a criminal walks into a police station pulls and gun and demands drugs and money from the evidence room?

What happens when a criminal tries to rob a gun store in a place that has 'will issue' CCW permits?

Tasers are a poor weapon for people to use to defend themself from violence or other types of crimes.

[herbie]

So do like our little strip mall. Open a Subway, the only place in town that can make you a lunch in under 45 minutes and guarantee under 40% chance of ptomaine. Right next to the only store in town.
Then open a liquor store right beside it, so all the winos will hang about right in front of the doors.
Toss in a sunny end of the month long weekend when every person from every rez within 100 miles is in town to stock up and socialize right there, and an RCMP detachment that must have one hell of a card game going in the lunchroom because they won't leave the cop shop unless called.
Now the locals just shove their way thru - shove, slap shoulder Hi JoeBob how ya doin these days? and listen to our politicians tell us how tourism will save the area.
The tourists who come here once and OMG BILLY GET BACK IN THE CAR WE'RE NOT GOING NEAR THERE - LET'S GO!!!
Maybe we should have a gun store next door for them to go to so they can feel "safe". Play on their xenophobic fears that a fucking local annoyance is a danger.

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

Self defence is the most common and I think justified use of a weapon. Most often people use weapons to defend themself from criminals so self defence is mostly stopping criminals.

The only crime a gun may be effective in thwarting is burglary. If you have the time, upon hearing a break-in, to come to your senses, get out of bed, retrieve your gun and lay in wait for the burglar, sure, a home-owner having a gun may be able to stop crime. But for every other crime, the guy with the gun is already pointing it at you. Haven’t you seen any Western movies in your life? The guy who pulls the gun first holds his gun and the other guy holds his hands over his head. So having a gun for self-defence is useless for one-on-one crime. And if everyone is carrying, the guy doing the crime is going to assume that his victim is armed. That means he’s gonna be watching for your Little Bill Daggett-Quick Draw McGraw manoeuvre to save the day. The only scenario left is the bank holdup I offered as a hypothetical: one criminal against the armed “neighbourhood”.

A gun for home protection makes some sense. But CCW is fools' logic.

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The only crime a gun may be effective in thwarting is burglary.

Stats show it's effective to stop assault, rape, muggings, murders...

$1:

If you have the time, upon hearing a break-in, to come to your senses, get out of bed, retrieve your gun and lay in wait for the burglar, sure, a home-owner having a gun may be able to stop crime. But for every other crime, the guy with the gun is already pointing it at you. Haven’t you seen any Western movies in your life? The guy who pulls the gun first holds his gun and the other guy holds his hands over his head. So having a gun for self-defence is useless for one-on-one crime. And if everyone is carrying, the guy doing the crime is going to assume that his victim is armed. That means he’s gonna be watching for your Little Bill Daggett-Quick Draw McGraw manoeuvre to save the day. The only scenario left is the bank holdup I offered as a hypothetical: one criminal against the armed “neighbourhood”.

If the criminal is going to shoot to stop me from shooting him why doesn't he just shoot first, like Han Solo?

Also even in the US most crimes are not commited with a firearm. What about the whole class of assaults? Every assault that has one side lose badly should by your logic end in a murder.

$1:

A gun for home protection makes some sense. But CCW is fools' logic.

Only when it's a fool trying to use logic.

[CanadianJeff]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

"Parents might take their kids out." Good for them, it will free up space for those parents who aren't alarmist assholes.

Now that cuts right to the heart of the bullshit.

[MeganC]

Lemmy Lemmy:

A gun for home protection makes some sense. But CCW is fools' logic.

Lots of cops and military like my husband have CCW for when they are off duty. Are they all fools too?

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

Stats show it's effective to stop assault, rape, muggings, murders...

Cite the study then. What would happen if EVERYONE were carrying? If the criminal assumes the potential victim is armed, he will plan his attack to disarm the victim first. The only way CCW can work to prevent rape, mugging, etc, is if the criminal isn't expecting that the victim is armed.

Xort Xort:

Also even in the US most crimes are not commited with a firearm. What about the whole class of assaults? Every assault that has one side lose badly should by your logic end in a murder.

But that will no longer be the case if everyone has a gun. If everyone has a gun, people won't stick others up with knives any more. Every attempted crime will be escalated to a gun crime. And the criminal will always have the advantage of brandishing it first.

MeganC MeganC:

Lots of cops and military like my husband have CCW for when they are off duty. Are they all fools too?

Your husband is a fool in at least one respect. Tit for tat, sweetheart. You brought a knife to this gunfight.

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Cite the study then. What would happen if EVERYONE were carrying?

A 100% carry rate isn't a realistic situation, your whole argument is based off a condition that isn't going to happen. So you can keep going around on your never going to happen situation, I however will stay within the realm of reality. I think you can hope for at best 5% of the population to daily carry a weapon.

$1:

If the criminal assumes the potential victim is armed, he will plan his attack to disarm the victim first. The only way CCW can work to prevent rape, mugging, etc, is if the criminal isn't expecting that the victim is armed.

This also implies that the criminal is willing to murder, many are not. And even if they are willing to murder they are taking a huge risk in attacking a person. With a very high chance of a person carrying a weapon they would face a very high change of being shot and killed if anything at all goes the wrong way for them. How many criminals are going to never once screw up while they are racking up murders?

$1:

But that will no longer be the case if everyone has a gun. If everyone has a gun, people won't stick others up with knives any more.

Everyone will not have a gun, and even with access to a gun many criminals opt not to use for for legal and police responce reasons.

$1:

Every attempted crime will be escalated to a gun crime. And the criminal will always have the advantage of brandishing it first.

Maybe, maybe not. You seem to imply that people will be blissfully unaware until someone points a gun in their face, again this isn't reality.

If everyone is armed which isn't going to happen, not only does your criminal now have to take on the roll of murder for every crime he will also need to be very sure of being totaly alone. A single person that is willing to act stops his life of crime.

~

Here is a question, why doesn't every criminal currently use a gun for a crime? They are not hard to get, and if your game theory of the power of a gun for crime was correct they have an almost unbeatable advantage.

So why do current criminals not all have a gun?

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

Here is a question, why doesn't every criminal currently use a gun for a crime? They are not hard to get, and if your game theory of the power of a gun for crime was correct they have an almost unbeatable advantage.

So why do current criminals not all have a gun?

Because the people they're preying on don't, so they don't need one. Tell the crook that his victim likely has a gun and he'll definitely go get one. This is becoming cyclical, so I'll stand down.