How many people are seriously afraid of firearms?

Post Reply New Topic

If open carry were the norm, then you would see people with guns on their belts in almost every place you go. That wouldn't stop theft, they would just find another way to steal. It would be more along the lines of burglery than robbery.

It's the same with the presence of a security guard. If you know that you are probably going to get shot, you will find another way to obtain what you want.

Unless you are crazy, and some criminals are crazy just like some non-criminals are crazy. Crazy people will always do crazy things, guns or no.

There is no violent crime in my town per se, most people are armed. Is my town simply filled with good natured people and it's the anomoly, or are most people pretty sure that if they try to mug somebody, they will get shot, so it's not worth it?

Frances

The Swiss aren't genetically different from other Western Europeans.



??

Wait, so if you have access to a gun in a selfdefence situation, you're going to die by default? What if you're a better shot than the criminal and you take him out before he can fire himself?



In other words, you put your life in the hands of the criminal, and you're forced to accept whatever outcome he has planned for you. You were saying something about control?



As evidenced where? That may be true for criminals, but not for ordinary citizens. The average person is very unlikely to get shot. If it somehow does happen, he would've gotten shot whether he was carrying or not.

Frances, maybe your town is full of Swiss people.

"Crazy people will always do crazy things, guns or no."

Yes, and if crazy people are near guns, people will always get killed. Crazy people not near guns are relatively harmless. And by 'crazy' we're really talking about a single irrational agent who doesn't fully understand the game. It could be anyone on a bad day.

Last edited by fraac on 27 Nov 2011, 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, those crime-less societies must be horrible places to live.

Think about it for a moment and realise that, yes, they are horrible.

The problem with banning guns is that banning them does not make them cease to exist. If there was something that made all guns, all over the world, suddenly cease to exist and the human race was wiped clean of all knowledge that they existed and how to invent them, then nobody would get shot. That's the only way that you can stop gun violence.

People who want a gun bad enough will always manage to get one. Destroying all the guns in the world, and all knowledge of them is the only way to stop this.

Frances

We're surely comparing them to Americans, not Europeans who don't have guns. Culturally they're very different.



Factually untrue. There are stats for this. I already showed you the police numbers: armed police get killed MUCH more than unarmed ones. You can easily extrapolate the logic to citizens. If you're a problem for a criminal and you have a gun, you're getting shot. I don't think you understood the stuff about control. Control is an illusion. Around guns, if you know you have no control you're safer than if you mistakenly believe you have control.

I once knew someone who'd qualify as 'crazy'. He has never seen a gun in his life, but stabbed someone to death who said something about his mother. I wouldn't quite call that 'harmless'. It doesn't take a gun for a crazy person to commit a serious crime.

Why would it hav to be a mistaken belief? What if you have more training and are a better shot? Why does the criminal have control when both of them have guns? That's a defeatest outlook.

Back when I did carry a gun, I never pulled it out, and would never point it at anybody unless my intent was to shoot them. I never did that. When you carry a gun, it's to be used as a last resort. I would hand over my money to a robber easily, without shooting them, if I were robbed while carrying. They could have the gun too if they wanted. A gun is to be used only in a situation where there is no other choice. The whole "quick draw" thing isn't happening.

Frances

When I visited Reykjavik, the Capital of Iceland, it didn't struck me as a horrible place at all. In fact, it was a beautiful place with amazing scenery, friendly people and a relaxed atmosphere. And there's next to no crime. Yet you suggest it would turn into a 'horrible place' if they somehow got rid of what little crime there is? You're either arguing for the sake of arguing, or you have a serious problem with common sense.

Frances, I'd be happy with keeping guns out of the hands of the police and the public. I don't care about criminals or crazy people. I know that sounds counterintuitive but from a game theoretic point of view it's the sane solution. Icyclan, so long as we're talking about outliers I'd say society is doing fine.

The criminal doesn't have control. The game logic has control and neither of you have access to its variables. When you don't know who has control, you don't have control. Why toss a coin for your life?

Of course I have more control when I'm armed than when I'm not. When I'm armed, I have the option of fighting back, if only as a last resort like the last poster mentioned. I can still choose not to draw the gun at all, whereas I don't have a choice if I'm not armed.

More options equals more control. It's not rocket science.

No, it's not rocket science, it's game theory and you don't understand it. It's possible that having more options in a situation leads to a worse average outcome. Then you would prefer fewer options. The only reason you don't want less control - when it would actually be safer - is because your psychology works on fear rather than maths. You simply aren't thinking correctly. Given that your gun-wielding criminal opponent is as irrational as you, escalation to murder is asymptotic to inevitable.

Think of the bank robbery scene in every film ever. The robbers have guns and their first job is to get everyone face down on the ground and REASSURE them that they have no control.

Then by your theory, all crimes commited by someone who is armed would result in murder.

They don't.

Why not?

Frances

Because there is a point where everyone recognises who is in control, then they relax. Without guns that point is usually reached before murder. With guns, murder is more likely because you need to establish who is in control, and how can you do that without at least pointing a gun at someone?

This is really really really really basic psychology. Are you sure you aren't arguing from an idealistic perspective?

So what you're saying is that if both people have a gun, there will be a power strugge? That's simply not true. If I were robbed, and armed, I wouldn't shoot someone - or attempt to shoot them - over the amount of money I carry around. I would possibly attempt to shoot them over rape. I would definately attempt to shoot them if they were trying to harm one of my children.

Not even all criminals who get robbed while armed will attempt to shoot the other person. Most people who own guns know that your chances of shooting someone who is already pointing a gun at you is very small. Unless you are a trained professional or you have an unusually large ego, you won't try it. In fact, they will probably end up with your gun as well as your money. Going to prison for capital murder and getting the death penalty is a lot worse than losing your money, etc. Even criminals know this. Unless it's a psychopath who simply wants to kill someone, and there are plenty of those around, your chances of getting shot are the same if you are carrying a gun as if you aren't. It's how you react to the criminal with the gun, not a theory of any sort that determines it.


Frances