Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I work in one of the most dangerous industrial areas in Phoenix. There is regular gang violence, there have been multiple shootings within a mile in the two years I've been there and I have seen a ten person brawl break out while eating at the nearby Chipoltle. I have no choice but to enter this area regularly, due to my employment, and I'm sure a very large swath of people work and live in and around the areas you deem dangerous. Avoiding them is not always an option.
|
Phoenix does have a surprising crime rate, I'll give you that. As of 2003, there were 241 murders a year, about 2 and a quarter times the national average. Still, that's out of a population of 1.4 million. If I've done my math right, that's 1 per nearly 6,000. Again, this is high, but when compared to any other crime it's quite low. Burglary alone is 17,000, and larceny and theft are 55,000. This would seem to indicate that, while theft is quite common, instances of murder when being stolen from are exceedingly rare even in Phoenix.
BTW, I've eten at Chipotle before. Their burrito may be worth weathering a 10 person brawl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
If they were always sufficient, why do they use their guns at all? My whole argument is based not on statistical probability, but possible need. Every sane gun owner hopes to go his or her entire life without needed to draw.
|
Police look for trouble, though. They intentionally look for dangerous people as a part of their job. You and I, on the other hand, probably avoid that kind of trouble. My point was that pepper spray and a taser wouldn't be used by police at all if they weren't effective.
[QUOTE=telekinetic;2799398]Uncommon does not equal impossible.
Are you suggesting that if there is even an infinitesimal risk to something, you should prepare for it? Are you prepared for a nuclear attack from Canada? Or an alien invasion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
You do not always have control of whether or not you personally offend someone. You could be a witness to a crime, you could rear-end or cut-off the wrong person, or you could simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You also could be an attractive female targeted for some single-party-consent mating. That's excluding possibilities of someone having a legitimate grudge against you for perfectly defensible reasons. If you were a witness against a gang crime, with your name and face plastered in the papers, would you then feel the need to start carrying?
|
These are all interesting hypotheticals, but they're hypotheticals none the less. I'm interested in responding to something based on likelihood. If there's a legitimate threat, not just in severity but in likelihood, it would seem rational to plan for it. If, however, it's unlikely (and theoretically the planning would include having a dangerous weapon), it would seem the risk doesn't merit such preparation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I'm not sure I understand...is this a call for the de-invention of the firearm?
|
No. I should have been more clear. Gun manufacturers thrive on the business they get from people who are afraid of other people. Because of this, they produce a lot of guns to meet demand. If demand from legal, passive buyers were to decrease substantially, there would be less guns around for criminals and it would be theoretically easier to track them.
I certainly do wish I could de-invent the gun, though. The world would be a better place without them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I do own guns. I do not feel it is more dangerous in those ways for the reasons I outlined. They are locked in a safe when it is not under my direct control, I do not point them at things which are not targets with safe backstops, and I keep my finger off the trigger except when firing. I fail to see the increase in danger to me and mine.
|
I read an article a few years ago about a little girl being hit in her apartment from stray gunfire from a block away, but I can't speak to that likelihood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
The aggressor is the only one who can end the conflict. No sane defender would continue the engagement if the aggressor was fleeing, whereas the aggressor, by definition, would.
If someone is in my house, they are welcome to anything on the ground floor. The only thing upstairs is me, my wife, and daughter, and coming up to that level indicates they aim to misbehave.
|
By misbehave you mean murder? Does that seem likely to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I state again: There is no cost to having a gun and not needing it, other than financial. The cost to not having a gun and needing one could be enormous.
|
According to
this study, a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that a family member will become a homicide victim in the home. Regardless of your care, even in locking away the weapon, you can't claim there's no risk involved in owning a gun. I'm sorry, but I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
There may be a difference in terms here. One meaning is when talking about shot placement, contrasting shoot to wound vs shoot to kill. Shooting to wound, that is limb shots, is both illegal and unethical, as it shows that you believe even at the time, that your application of potential lethal force was not justified. You should always take shots at spots which could possibly result in fatal wounding--center mass primarily, but also head and lower torso. However, it is not because you wish to kill the attacker--it is because these are the same spots most likely to stop the attack...that is, deliver enough immediate damage to stop the attacker, either by disrupting the nervous or skeletal system, injuring the attacker so gravely they do not wish to continue the attack, or rendering them dead or unconscious.
|
I don't see how intent is relevant. If you shoot center mass and know that shot is likely to kill, intending to kill doesn't change the outcome: you're shooting in a way you know is likely to kill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
Suicide by pistol, regardless of intended shot placement is also not always successful, despite movies depiction to the contrary (Fight Club notably excepted). And yes, I would--your lungs have no 'sensors' for helium, like they do for carbon dioxide, so you get no sensation of suffocation, just a gentle drifting off on an oxygen deprivation high. Again with the other thread's topic, however.
|
Based on the statistics, it would seem to be highly successful, more so than other popular methods like cutting and pills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
There is a chance, yes. If you are not aware of your backstop, it is not safe to discharge your firearm. Using hollow-point bullets which do not over-penetrate and only taking shots at ranges you are accurate at can also help minimize stray bullets. At the point in which you engage in a gun battle, then the chances come in to play. There is a large chance you will die if you do not engage, or you shouldn't. There is a small chance someone else will get injured if you do, and that chance can be made smaller by backstop awareness and accurate shot placement. This is a fair trade--it is harder than the movies make it seem to intentionally kill someone with a pistol, it is almost completely unlikely to accidently do so. Like I said, I'd love to see an example of someone accidently shooting a bystander in self defense, compared to the amount of times the only casualty is the attacker.
|
So we are taking into account likelihood?
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
You even grant that the pepper spray was overused. Did the perpetrator look disabled to you? If that glass had been a gun, do you think he would have been unable to discharge it with reasonable accuracy at those ranges? Do you think if it had been a gun pointed at the officers, they would have approached so calmly and trusted the spray?
|
Pepper spray is overused by dicks. Also, police put themselves into situations where they may be shot at, instead of you and I who will seek to avoid such situations. If you saw a man with a gun, I'm sure your first impulse would be to dive behind something of substantial mass to prevent the bullets from reaching you, yes?
I must say, this has been quite fun. Before we make our closing arguments, I'd like to thank telekinetic for a wonderful debate.
