Guns don't kill people ....

[Lamplighter]

Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying
that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious,
or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious.
It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.

This "Having my CCL (gun) makes me more cautious" argument is literally
making the rounds on the internet among gun-advocate web sites,
and Joe Zamudio is their latest CCL-hero.
They say that he exercised caution and good judgment when he
came to the aid of Rep Gifford in Arizona.
Some of their statements are factual wrong.
And they don't expose one important detail...

MSNBC
Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man
— it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
The gun the older man was holding had been wrestled away from the shooter.
Police later identified 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner as the suspect.

"I could have very easily done the wrong thing and hurt a lot more people,"
said Zamudio, who helped subdue the suspect until authorities arrived.

I'm not denigrating Joe Zamudio. In fact, I was very impressed by him
in interviews at the time where he said his frame of mind was that
he was prepared to his gun, and was only stopped by the shouts of the crowd.

My point is that it is only fantasy to suggest that having a gun will
make a person cautious and rational.
I think it's just as easy to imagine a fantasy of a Mexican Standoff,
or shooting an innocent person... or yourself.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious, or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious. It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.

Can lose caution? 1% of situations where people losing caution is a hell of a lot different than 99% of situations. Your statement has no merit since you are using anecdotes and what if scenarios. In the vast majority of situations, the scene will not be complete chaos.


Seriously, to both sides, it all depends on gun culture. When some people (lets call them Type A) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon they are holding and will become more cautious. They will not do anything stupid and will avoid confrontations unless absolutely necessary. Guns in the hands of these people, in general (I repeat....in general), will make society safer.

When other people (lets call them Type B) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon and power trip. They will be very confrontational and will enforce their status with guns. Gun in the hands of these people, in general, will make society more dangerous.


Both sides of the gun debate argument talk about different types of people.

Also, complete gun control in the US is a fantasy due to our gun culture. Both Type A and Type B people prefer guns and banning will just push guns further underground, as it did with drugs and alcohol.

To make the US safer with guns, it has to strictly regulated. In order to possess a firearm, classes and licenses (like driving) need to be obtained. If you are caught with a firearm without a license, the penalty should be harsh since there should be NO excuse for carrying without a license.

This is not a perfect solution but both sides need to acknowledge that their views are far from ideal as well.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Can lose caution? 1% of situations where people losing caution is a hell of a lot different than 99% of situations. Your statement has no merit since you are using anecdotes and what if scenarios. In the vast majority of situations, the scene will not be complete chaos.

And where do you get your 1% and 99% ?
Frankly, I believe you will be hard pressed to document a statistically valid
sample of instances where CCL-guns were actually used to prevent or reduce
the incidence of the so-called intrusions/attacks/etc, let alone test the level of "caution" or loss there of.
Certainly the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' annual surveys cannot document such improved outcomes.

Seriously, to both sides, it all depends on gun culture. When some people (lets call them Type A) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon they are holding and will become more cautious. They will not do anything stupid and will avoid confrontations unless absolutely necessary. Guns in the hands of these people, in general (I repeat....in general), will make society safer.

How much safer will these Type A people be with their guns than without them ?
I believe you are defining this group from within a larger group of people
- who generally behave safely and avoid confrontations, with or without a gun.


When other people (lets call them Type B) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon and power trip. They will be very confrontational and will enforce their status with guns. Gun in the hands of these people, in general, will make society more dangerous.

And, so the numerical balance of outcome between two groups is what, zero ?
Again, such a number is probably not available, and it's an assumption
that Group A benefits will far outweigh group B.

Both sides of the gun debate argument talk about different types of people.

Also, complete gun control in the US is a fantasy due to our gun culture. Both Type A and Type B people prefer guns and banning will just push guns further underground, as it did with drugs and alcohol.

In a previous post, you said such would lead to "revolution" Now that is scary, and really cuts off discussion !
But isn't the biggest part of this problem what you refer to next... regulation.
From my perspective, it's the absolute intolerance towards any kind of regulation by NRA etc. that prevents useful discussion


To make the US safer with guns, it has to strictly regulated. In order to possess a firearm, classes and licenses (like driving) need to be obtained. If you are caught with a firearm without a license, the penalty should be harsh since there should be NO excuse for carrying without a license.

This is not a perfect solution but both sides need to acknowledge that their views are far from ideal as well.
Agreed !

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

And where do you get your 1% and 99% ?

Frankly, I believe you will be hard pressed to document a statistically valid sample of instances where CCL-guns were actually used to prevent or reduce the incidence of the so-called intrusions/attacks/etc, let alone test the level of "caution" or loss there of. Certainly the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' annual surveys cannot document such improved outcomes.

That is my point. I picked your quote because you were the last person to post but both sides of the gun control debate have a strong tendency to solely cite anecdotes or be completely speculative. As you mentioned, it is impossible to statistically measure the complete impact of guns into positive and negative categories that can be compared. All we have is gun crime statistics, anecdotes, and speculation, all of which are heavily biased and do not give a good picture of the problem. That is why I am trying to frame this debate in a different manner.

How much safer will these Type A people be with their guns than without them ?
I believe you are defining this group from within a larger group of people - who generally behave safely and avoid confrontations, with or without a gun.

No, the context is correct. I am saying that because I personally sometimes fall under that category. I think fighting is stupid but I like to mess with people and see how far I can take it. It is usually in good fun but it is possible to hit a nerve and get a defensive response out of someone, especially when alcohol is involved. However, if I was a carrying a gun with me, I would never do anything that could potentially get a defensive response out of someone because I know it could escalate quickly and put me in a very bad situation.

And, so the numerical balance of outcome between two groups is what, zero ?
Again, such a number is probably not available, and it's an assumption that Group A benefits will far outweigh group B.

I made no assertion because this is the discussion that I would like to see. There is no numerical equation but framing it in this way at least shows forces everyone to acknowledge both sides.

If I had a guess, I would say certain regions of the US have many more Type A people than Type B and other regions of the US have many more Type B people than Type A. Once again, it depends on the gun culture of the particular location. That is why I am against any federal gun control ban (besides overly powerful weapons). What may work for New York City will probably not work for Wyoming and vice versa. Gun control laws should be local.

In a previous post, you said such would lead to "revolution" Now that is scary, and really cuts off discussion !

It was a hyperbole. I made the point that it is currently not politically possible for the government to completely ban guns in the US.

From my perspective, it's the absolute intolerance towards any kind of regulation by NRA etc. that prevents useful discussion

I agree. They have a very negative role in this.