Gun Question

[Avonrepus]

Found this on Rightnation:

"Ask your anti-gun friends this question:

Which scenero would they feel safest in?

1. 9 people and you are on an elevator, only one person is armed and is looking suspicious.

or

2. 9 people and you are on an elevator, everyone, including yourself is armed.

If they are honest they would feel safest when everyone was armed and on equal footing. If they say no. 1, they are either lying or too stupid to understand the question. "

comments on it?

[deeprig9]

1. Typical Conservative Rednecks

Only two choices given... conservatives are always trying to pigeon hole scenarios like they are telling one of Aesop's Fables and we are all supposed to be enlightened. :(

[porphyrian]

13. Exactly! The Conservative Binary Argument

My wife and I sometimes refer to these arguments as "milk or juice" arguments, based on the way mothers ask small thirsty children what they want. You can't just ask a four year old "what do you want to drink?" You could get any number of different answers. So, tired and/or humorless-at-this-point mothers will often limit the range of possible answers to things that are readily available and/or more to the mother's liking for her child. Thus, "would you like milk or juice?" proves to be the better question. However, amongst the adult citizens of this country, this form of argument is patronizing and unimaginative at best, especially with matters of state, foreign policy or anything affecting peoples' lives.

The really irritating thing about binary arguments is that there is usually a "correct" answer to choose, and the other is a lemon, so then it's really just a statement they're giving you a chance to agree with. They like to ask things like "Would you shoot a terrorist in your house, or would you let them go free?" Or, in a more sinister fashion, "Would you rather leave a dictator like Saddam in charge of Iraq?" This Stealth Binary seems at first glance to be an open question, although it is binary (answers are "yes" or "no") or, arguably, unary (as "no" is the only answer you can give that would be acceptable).

Update: spelling

[BlackActivist]

57. Gun laws are only used to unfairly used to lock blacks up.

The Nazification of America continues.

[formernaderite]

61. Well said....particularly in poor areas.

This is one of the few issues where I part from the left. The "Saturday night special" ban was also targeted at removing guns from poor minorities. It was a cheap gun that lower income people could afford..so let's ban it. It's completely freaky to me, that in areas where law enforcement in terms of a deterrent is ineffective, we confiscate everyone's right to protect themselves and their families. I've often thought it was a conspiracy to complicitly allow black genocide. Gun laws first crept up to make sure blacks couldn't arm themselves, which was of course accepted by the white community. Unfortunately there are quite a few inner city black politicians who themselves can afford "protection", yet deny the greater community the same rights.

[JayS]

64. Remember the government run housing project where the...

...tenants were told that they could own no type of firearm at all? This, in spite of the considerable crime in the area. Remember how fast the ACLU came to their defense? That was terrific how fast they got there! Oh, wait...that wasn't the ACLU it was the NRA. My mistake.

[DoNotRefill]

69. Don't forget the racist origin of the term...

"Saturday Night Special"...Originally it was "Saturday Night N*****town Special". They dropped the "N" word to try to make it PC, just as they've now dropped the term "SNS" in favor of "junk guns". The meaning is still the same....guns that poor people, even minorities, can afford.

BTW, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is the ONLY Jim Crow law left on the books. To buy certain guns, you must go to the chief of police where you live and get him to sign off on your paperwork. Of course, the CLEO is under NO obligation to sign off, so if you're black, it ain't generally gonna happen.

[DoNotRefill]

68. You might want to read Diamond's and Cottrol's article

"The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration"
http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-recon.html

Also, don't forget that in the 1940's, a State Supreme court ruled that gun control laws didn't apply to Whites, but only to minorites, since that's who the gun control laws were designed to disarm.

[library_max]

2. Okay, so they'd rather everyone was "packing" in an enclosed space.

That means they have to rely on the sanity and judgement of nine people instead of just one. Because it would only take one nut to start a shooting spree that would be very hard for anyone to survive in a space like an elevator. Gun enthusiasts seem to think that you can shoot a protective force-field out of a gun, but you can't. You can only try to shoot the other person first, and in this scenario that just starts everyone shooting, doesn't it?

Of course the happiest scenario, one not offered by Rightnation for some reason, is an elevator with nine people and no guns.

[forgethell]

4. No.

They rely on the fact that even criminals are not insane (generally), and will not start a violent crime if the likelihood is that they will be among the dead when it is over. Will it work for everyone? No, someone might be so drunk they will start shooting, or spaced out on crack, or your drug of choice. Or genuinely certifiably insane. but these are less likly than the crimianlly-inclined. And in either case, once someone starts shooting, someone else will stop them, so there will be only one or two dead, maybe three, instead of nine. you do the math. And, yes, things could still go wrong. Nothing is 100% sure, so don't argue back with some hypoothetical scenario whereby the bad guy guns down the other 9 people and walks out.

Red-neck? No. Conservative? I like to think conservatives aren't the only people who would like to protect themselves and their loved ones.

[wuushew]

7. Is the probability of death higher with one gun or nine?

Why is the worst case scenario always cited?

Let us use the Iraq analogy

Death from actual working Iraqi WMDs on American soil=250,000 dead. Chance of it happening 1 in 1,000,000(or more).

Death from American invasion of Iraq 10,000+ civilians. Likelyhood of event happening 99.8% with Bush in office. As you can see the more beneign outcome is more likely to cause innocent deaths. Can this be applied to the gun scenario?

[TexasMexican]

31. From what I've seen, more guns = safer

I remember a while back when they had that one kid in Germany who went on a shotgun shooting rampage at his school.

I dont remember exacly how many people were killed however more died than in the biker gang shootout in Vegas that happened a few days later.

Apparently two biker gangs (I think it was the Hells Angels and someone else) both were armed and they both fired on each other, however I think in the end no one actually died.

[forgethell]

93. I am not sure

what your point is. What, for instance does Bush and Iraq have to do with gun control, or lack thereof? What is your best case scenario? What is your most likely scenario? Why do people buy lottery tickets when they know they have not a chance in hell on winning the $100 million jackpot? Why do some people win anyway?

Please explain what you mean, 'cause you lost me.

However, I think the odds of death are greater with 1 gun, if the bad guy has it.

[library_max]

15. "Protect themselves and their loved ones"?

You're in an elevator with nine other people. Everyone has a gun. Some nut pulls his or her gun and starts shooting people. How in tunket does your gun "protect" you or anyone? You pull your gun and start shooting back. How does this protect anyone? You're in an elevator, packed in like sardines! The chances of hitting the wrong person, or having your bullet go through your target and also injure or kill the person behind, are immense. And don't you think there will be panic, with everyone pulling his or her gun and trying to "fix" the situation, shooting at anyone else who is shooting (like you, for example)?

Now work it the other way. Only one person with a gun. That's only ten percent of the chance that someone with a gun is a nut or a criminal that you would have if everyone had a gun. But say he or she happens to be that one. Again, you're packed in shoulder to shoulder. Doesn't it make infinitely more sense to try to grab the gun or the arm of the shooter rather than trying to draw your gun and shoot in these tight-packed conditions? Remember, he or she is probably surrounded on all sides. At least three people can reach even if he or she is in a corner.

By the way, the redneck crack is not mine. You won't catch me using that term. I'm a southerner myself.

[forgethell]

94. Chance of being in an elevator

with a gun nut. 0.00000001%, I'd say. Now a Mcdonald's, or something, probably higher. And I made that figure up just to illustrate the point. There are many instances where a gun might be useful.

gun nut starts shooting 9people are dead. Someone else has a gun, maybe less, maybe 10. But the tenth is not of concern to me.

[library_max]

100. Hey, I didn't make up the scenario.

Somebody on your side of the argument did.

Lone gun nut starts shooting, whole elevator full of people able to grab for the arm, the gun, etc. Elevator full of gun nuts start shooting, everybody dies.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

3. The Fear Factor

I've been trying to understand the pro-gun and anti-gun 'nuts'. (just having fun with the phrase, no flaming intended).

I'm really having a difficult time with both.

First off the questions are stupid. 1 gun on a suspicious looking person? 9 guns on 'everyone'? Well hell if they ALL look suspicious with or WITHOUT a gun, I'd take another elevator! EASY ANSWER.

MY ONLY problem with the pro-gun arguments is the built in paranoia that seems to go along with it. I've got to have a gun because I dont know if my neighbor has a gun .. and then it becomes circular.. now because YOU have a gun.. I NEED a gun..... ad infinitum.

But then the anti-gun is just as paranoid.. 'oh no, HE HAS A GUN, he's going to do something bad to me'!

It's alllll so paranoid.. so I chose NOT to own a gun and NOT to worry about IF you have one.

and I can always wait for the next elevator.

[shraby]

5. My husband and

three sons all hunt deer. They are careful, the ammo is kept separate from the rifles and my sons have been taught from the time they were small that guns are dangerous. They all played cops and robber type games when small but they never confused a toy with the real thing and we made sure they were aware of what real guns do. They in turn have taught their sons. So I guess a person can be liberal, a Democrat and still own guns.

[OpSomBlood]

6. Liberal Democrat Gun Owner Here.

I firmly believe that "gun control" (read: harrassing law-abiding gun owners) is a loser issue that is siphoning votes away from the Democrats.

[tom_paine]

10. Radicalized Moderate DemocratIC gun onwer here

And I agree.

On the upside to this last 3+ years of horror, I think Herr Bushler has taught MANY people the virtues of a Heavily Individually Armed Nation

(and yes, there are more than a few detriments, too, but this one overarches them all)

[library_max]

17. Virtues of a heavily armed nation.

Which are?

[tom_paine]

23. I don't want to get into a long argument about this

(if I wanted that I'd spend more time in the Gungeon)

The particular virtue I was speaking of is the ideas of a hevaily armed nation impeding the speed and force at which Tyrants move.

I know, I know, a single person cannot fight a tank (although the Iraq Resistors are certainly showing something, eh?). I am thinking of the Big Picture here.

How far along would the Imperial Family be to Nazi/Soviet style Tyranny if they didn't harbor the knowledge in the back of their minds that if they go too far trouble could escalate quickly, damaging and perhaps destroying the Prize they Covet, the money and infrastructure of the Old American Republic.

They cannot seize it undamaged, not even close, if even 10% of us are actively involved in a Civil War (God Forbid). They cannot move too fast against their enemies or risk our nation disintegrating into chaos.

Mostly because we're all packing. If we weren't, they could easily control us (collectively speaking, yes I know all about the "what can one person with a gun do?" argument)

One person with a gun and a Patriotic Heart can do little except be killed. One thousand people can do much more.

But let us all pray to God that such a thing NEVER comes to pass.

[library_max]

32. Meanwhile guns kill thirty-plus thousand people per year.

My personal opinion is that if there is ever a true fascist/dictatorial takeover of this country, it'll be because the overwhelming majority want it or at least don't object to it. Most people aren't armed now, after all. More people vote than own guns. I think it's the voting, not the guns, that is keeping any would-be fascists in check.

[tom_paine]

42. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then

I believe at least 15,000 of those people would be dead anyway, in the absence of guns, but I'll readily admit I am just pulling that figure from my tuchus (metaphysical question, of sorts).

It's the voting that keeps the fascist far away. When the voting dwindles, becomes untrustworthy & rigged, and the Orwellianism rises. When the System of Checks and Balances becomes as weak as a kitten...

...then you must look to other reasons why the Busheviks aren;t rounding us up yet.

2 reasons, IMHO

1) A heavily armed populace

2) AV Technology and Internet making the "secrecy" of a Dachau very problematic

That's it. Nothing more.

Oh yeah:

3) The wretched remnants of the System of Checks and Balances that was the Old American Republic.

[JayS]

44. "When the voting dwindles, becomes untrustworthy & rigged"

This would never, ever happen here.

Hey, did I tell y'all I'm going to Florida for my vacation? Don't know why I thought of that just now. :)

[FeebMaster]

43. More people vote than own guns?

Not by much.

Speaking of those 30,000 people a year, half of them kill themselves. Doesn't a person have the right to take their own life?

[library_max]

104. Where do you get your figures on how many people own guns?

I can get my figures on voting from standard references. 105 million voted in 2000 - that's not anybody's estimate, it's an established fact. The figures JayS gave on carry permits were about 1% of the population of gun-happy Texas. By comparison, about 40% of the total population voted (counting children, etc.). Now I'd say a forty-to-one ratio exceeds "by much" - forty to two if you want to believe that there's one gun-toting criminal for every law-abiding gun owner.

[JayS]

109. Except in limited instances, a carry permit is not required...

...for a firearm. Most gunowners will never even look into getting a CHL.

[library_max]

114. So do you have actual figures? /nt

[JayS]

122. What, for total firearm ownership in the State of Texas?

No one does. There are estimates but that is all they are, estimates.

[library_max]

127. The estimates I've read say sixty-five million guns.

And two gun-owners I know own more than a dozen between them.

[JayS]

133. Who knows. We don't even know how many people are here...

...with any certainty.

[DoNotRefill]

134. horseshiat. 65 million guns???? Try THREE HUNDRED MILLION...

what's your 65 million gun source?

[library_max]

138. Okay, my error, the 65 million figure was HANDguns.

But now for the good news! I've found an authoritative source that isn't working your side of the street or mine and that has valid figures on it. The National Criminal Justice Research Service is the principle disseminator of facts and scholarship regarding crime and justice in the US. Here's the page where I got the info:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

Actually, they way there are 44 million gun owners and 192 million guns. So we're both wrong. More than twice as many voters than gun owners, but nowhere near forty times as many.

Incidentally, many other interesting facts on that page, such as the fact that an American teenager is more likely to die from a gunshot wound than from any other cause.

[DoNotRefill]

140. they're citing 1996 figures....

and 2002 figures are available now.

[library_max]

142. Where?

Dammit, you guys say there are no real figures or that you can't provide any real figures and then I go and find real figures and you complain because they aren't current enough!

:grr:

So where are these 2002 figures to which you refer? And are they significantly different from the 1996 figures?

[DoNotRefill]

143. do a google search of NCVS...

eom

[library_max]

147. You do it.

I researched and gave you a link. Why are you too good to do the same in return?

[DoNotRefill]

157. simple. I know what I'll find.

and I know that my research will not create the impact in your mind that your doing your OWN research will create.

[JayS]

149. I'm not sure where they are getting their data from. The...

...ownership numbers are of course going to be subjective and vary greatly by region.

The teenager data doesn't marry up to what the CDC shows unless maybe they are mixing homicides and suicides or something. The CDC has its data for that group lumped into a 15 to 24 age group so it is a little hard to say.

The site you gave does jibe with what I hear most regarding gangs and the drug war though.


The risk of being killed is 60 times greater among young gang members than in the general population25 and in some cities, far higher. For example, the St. Louis youth gang homicide rate is 1,000 times higher than the U.S. homicide rate.

[DoNotRefill]

116. 80-100 million gun owners in the US....

are the figures I most often see, but nobody knows for sure.

[library_max]

121. Where do those figures come from? On what are they based?

I trust that somebody didn't just make them up.

[DoNotRefill]

130. most of the estimates I've seen....

are based upon things like the NCVS, exit polling, rates of new firearms purchases, et cetera.

[DoNotRefill]

70. it's too bad that you had to "bulk up" your figures...

by including suicides.

BTW, a new report came out that shows Japan's suicide rate has now equalled the US suicide rate, despite the fact that there are almost no guns over there.

People who want to die will commit suicide, regardless of if they use a gun or not.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

21. So true..

In my 4 decades, I've never owned a gun, never fired a gun, and have had no interest in them... but over the last 2 years..... HMmmmmm... :scared:

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

20. Curious tho,

.. why is it that "gun control" is a loser issue but publicizing Fear and uncertainty as the #1 vested interest in allowing 'free reign' of gun ownership?

After all, isn't it logical to assume if you spread too much fear and too much uncertainty that you'll PUSH the very same people to say 'I'm tired of being afraid, so let's try to do something about it'?

Back to the circular logic???

[T Town Jake]

37. Well said!

I agree totally. Take the gun control issue away from the GOP and convince Ralph Nader to stop his quixotic runs for office, I don't see how we ever have a Republican President again for the next one hundred years.

[JayS]

45. "convince Ralph Nader to stop his quixotic runs for office"

If the gun control issue was modified to fit a more realistic model then Nader could run all he wants. The Democratic candidate could even endorse him and guarantee him the electoral votes of several state. We'd still win.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

19. I have no problem with gun ownership...

.. and people enjoying hunting (altho personally I could never do it).

[TexasSissy]

8. Well, I have to agree w/the author. #2 is safer. The Old West, ya'know.

But I would prefer to have NEITHER situation to contend with.

[HippieCowgirl]

9. Skewer me if you want...

...but I'm a pro-gun democrat.

AND the scenario is just absurd.

In Texas, if you are properly trained in gun safety, gun laws, and gun operation, you can apply for a concealed carry license. That means if 9 people are on an elevator, there's a high probablility that more than one of them is armed.

Why do you think southerners have such a reputation for beling polite?

[southpaw]

12. A hippie packing heat?

That's just not cool, man!

[HippieCowgirl]

14. <grin>

Welcome to the New South, Where the hippies shoot back.

[DoNotRefill]

72. what's wrong with that?

I've been to over 300 Dead shows....and am very heavily armed.

I still miss Jerry....

[Taverner]

41. "Why do you think southerners have such a reputation for beling polite?"

LOL....I love it

BTW...I'm a pro-gun democrat too...I want to be able to shoot back when they come to take me away to the camps...

[forgethell]

99. As Robert Heinlein once said

"An armed society is a polite society."

[library_max]

119. "Why do you think southerners have such a reputation for being polite?"

I don't know, but as a transplanted northerner living in the south for the last 20 years, I can tell you that it's undeserved. There are nice people in both places, but nothing distinctively polite about southerners. Yet another gun-lover's myth that the presence of guns makes people nicer.

[JayS]

131. We are not friendly to all people. Some we just tolerate. n/t

n/t

[Vickers]

11. As a concealed weapon permit holder

I hope I am the one packing heat and looking suspicious.

[bleedingheart]

16. This is a question from a paranoid person...

and I would ask them if they had taken their medication...

[Mountainman]

18. You would have to make a lot of assumptions about the future

to agree with that statement.

I think any guns in an elevator with 9 people is dangerous since you can only die once it doesn't matter if you are shot with the one gun owner or one of the 9 gun owners. The assumption is that if everyone was armed no one would shoot. But that means that eight people would decide to shoot the one who shot first and in that situation anyone could get shot.

[Bandit]

22. What are the odds of a Friendly Fire accident with nine armed people vs

one person with a gun. I would say just off the top of my head they would be nine to one in favor of someone getting shot accidently.

[Lindacooks]

24. Both stupid questions, showing a lack of logical reasoning skills

And why is the person with the gun in question #1 "looking suspicious"?

I think that ANYBODY with a gun in a public place looks suspicious.

[JayS]

26. "ANYBODY with a gun in a public place looks suspicious"

You'd go nuts here in Texas! :)

[OpSomBlood]

27. By definition, with a "concealed" weapon you wouldn't know.

So if you live in a CCW state, you are probably standing in an elevator with an armed person quite a bit.

[library_max]

33. I live in Texas myself.

Damn few people carry guns on their person.

I think the "looks suspicious" bit was thrown in to further bias the question in favor of the desired answer.

[JayS]

47. I think the DPS would disagree with you.

Here is a bit of info on who carries...legally.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/actlicbycounty.pdf

[library_max]

101. Assuming that those are the numbers of people with carry permits,

they make up about 1% of the adult population, even here in gun-happy Texas. And people who have a permit to carry don't necessarily carry all the time or even most of the time.

I know plenty of Texas gun owners. They leave their guns at home.

[JayS]

107. Well, as you know, our State Constitution is so liberal when...

...it comes to Second Amendment rights there is really not much point in getting a CHL unless you just want to avoid the hastles that can come from carrying without one.

And I know lots of Texas gunowners that have guns as part of the standard auto tools that all drivers should carry.

[TexasMexican]

53. There is no open carry of handguns in Texas

So the only people who are carrying handguns have them concealed.

Althought you can theoretically carry a loaded rifle or shotgun around because there are no laws against it.

[JayS]

58. We went to a restaurant in Austin and there were two men...

...eating at the bar and both were wearing pistols and everyday clothes. It was funny how no one even seemed to notice. In some states people would have run screaming from the place and ran straight to their therapist.

[TexasMexican]

60. Hmmm

unless those guys were LEOs or something (I'm not sure if they get any special priledges to open carry when offduty), then they technically broke the law.

Not that I would complain or if I were on a jury convict them of it, and if they ate thier food and no police ever hassled them then apparently no one else complained either.

As for "in some states people would have run screaming..." comment yeah, in fact in "open carry" states people who open carry legally are often times hassled by the police because someone who didnt know the law called them, and they have to check it out.

[JayS]

63. I'm pretty sure that they were some type of law enforcement...

...and doing something that required plainclothes. Of course around here you never know. :)

[baldguy]

62. What they mean by "looking suspicious" is easy.

"Looking suspicious" means "looking black".

[NATaylor]

25. Gun Control and Stand Up Comedy Come Together

I heard a comic on tv make an interesting analogy the other day. I swore to my wife that I was going to use it at some point, but I haven't had the chance until now.

If guns kill people, then I can blame misspelled words on my pencil.

This probably won't be a popular post, but there are truths to many of the jokes that today's comics use. I just thought I would pass along this little gem. Enjoy!

[library_max]

34. If there were thousands of words that couldn't be misspelled except

with a pencil, there'd be some point in blaming misspellings on the pencil. Of course, nobody ever died of a misspelled word.

[NATaylor]

38. But you miss the point....

All too often we want to blame inanimate objects for things that go wrong in this world, but without the person the word would never have been spelled, thus never spelled incorrectly. Similarly, the gun would never be fired without human action making it so, thus no one would be hurt.

It seems so simple to me. Maybe its far fetched.

[OpSomBlood]

40. It's so simple that people feel the need to complicate it.

A gun is an object, just like a knife or a lead pipe.

I hate cliches, but guns don't kill people.

[library_max]

106. Likewise, the gun could not be fired without existing in the first place.

It's not a question of blame, it's a question of what can be done to solve the problem. You can't abolish people, but you can abolish guns(or at least severely restrict them, several countries have done it successfully).

[JayS]

112. "you can abolish guns(or at least severely restrict them..."

Really? And how do you expect to do this? Even in the odd chance that you could get elected with this attitude and start trying to carry out your plan...what happens when the people tell you to go pee up a rope?

And we can abolish the people that are the main group we are concerned about. They are called violent criminals and we send them to a place called jail.

[library_max]

144. Most homicides are first-time offenders.

So tell me how you plan to lock 'em up before they've committed the crime.

Regarding the politics, well, that's a problem. But if we can agree on what would be better for the country (thirty thousand fewer deaths per year or no fewer deaths per year), then we could worry about how to get it done. I'd rather be part of the solution, even if I can't get it done, than be part of the problem.

[JayS]

152. Most offenders have one hell of a rap sheet before they...

...graduate to homicides. It isn't that hard to take care of them. We have a new program here and it shows promise and is serious gun control. :)

If I thought we had a snowball's chance at reducing deaths by some sort of firearm control I'd want to take a look at it. We don't. The tool is largely irrelevant if the motive is there.

[DoNotRefill]

156. Really?

that contradicts my personal experience in law enforcement. Most homicides are NOT committed by first time offenders. Most homicides are committed by people committing their first HOMICIDE, but NOT their first offense.

Want to cut down on homicide in the US? Simple. Put domestic abusers away for a LONG time.

[FeebMaster]

118. You keep saying this

but you still haven't mentioned how you're planning on getting it done here in the US.

[gpandas]

139. like blaming the drugs when a person fucks up.n/t

[DoNotRefill]

74. really? nobody ever died of a misspelled word? you sure?

Care to revise that statement before you get figuratively hammered for it? Because if you don't, you WILL get hammered....misspelled and misinterpreted written words kill more people in the US annually than are murdered. And it isn't by a small margin.....your odds of being killed by bad penmanship are statistically VASTLY greater than the odds of being murdered.

[JayS]

79. Darn, you beat me to it. I should have posted this when I had...

...the chance! Oh well, let's see if anybody can guess what we are talking about. :)

[DoNotRefill]

80. the last figures I saw....

were running about 10:1. Yup, over 10 people die every year due to misspelled or misinterpreted written words for every one person murdered with a gun.

[JayS]

81. That sounds about right. When the WSJ did a story on the...

...issue I remember thinking that it was one good sized town that died every year.

[No2W2004]

28. This is easy

Scenerio #1, either suspicious looking guy doesn't start waving his gun around in the elevator, or he does and the other 9 people subdue him.

Scenerio #2 Nervous freeper pulls his gun and starts blasting away. Other people think THEY'RE being fired on, and return fire. Everyone dies.

[JayS]

29. Or better yet...

...take the friggin stairs! We Americans are fat and we can't vote. :)

[immoderate]

65. I hope the people in the elevator...

...remember their EAR protection.

--IMM

[John BigBootay]

30. Well, let's be honest--

The LAST place I'd go after someone with a gun (unless I was just plain suicidal) is a gun range.

Overall-- the question is a dumb one, though.

[evil_orange_cat]

35. gun control is using two hands

bawhahahhahaw ;)

but seriously... dumb question...

I'd rather nobody has guns.

[Iris]

36. Either way, everyone on the elevator could be dead. n/t

[Frangible]

39. It's a loaded question

As a gunowner, I've seen some very dumb people with guns. The only person I truly trust with one is myself. I've even bitched at friends for not following the rules of gun safety, which went something like "don't fucking point that thing at me".

So, while I think everyone on the elevator has the right to carry, I'd feel most comfortable if I was the only one carrying.

[Independent_Minded]

46. im just relieved

that im not the only pro-gun person on the boards.

[immoderate]

66. There are many gun owners at DU.

My take is based on the notion that in a free country, no one should have the right to tell me I can't have a gun.

My general rule of thumb is that if I consider there is someplace where I would feel I need my gun, that is a place I wouldn't go to.

--IMM

[T Town Jake]

75. Me too

I'm a newbie and gun owner too! :hi: There's some very pro-gun Democrats down in what they call the "Gungeon." Welcome!

[VOX]

48. Oh yeah. I'd feel *real* safe in an elevator with 10 people packing heat.

It doesn't occur to freepers that, with *everybody* on the elevator fondling a piece, it's 10 times more likely that someone would discharge their weapon (for any reason).

Take the two freeper wet-dream scenarios, play them out, and imagine what would you see in the lobby as the elevator doors opened:

1. 9 people and you are on an elevator, only one person is armed and is looking suspicious.
Lobby: Assuming the "suspicious" person actually said or did something to warrant it, you'd see one sorry guy being physically overpowered by 9 other people.

2. 9 people and you are on an elevator, everyone, including yourself is armed.
Lobby: The elevator doors open, a pool of blood spills out, and ten bodies are stacked like cordwood inside.

[OpSomBlood]

49. I think we all agree that this is a pretty goofy and unrealistic scenario.

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

76. So, Rezmutt....

You'd feel uncomfortable in an elevator if everybody else was armed? What if they're all cops? And if they are all cops and you're still nervous, what're you holding? ;)

Carrying concealed doesn't mean "fondling".

I've carried for over 10 years on a daily basis. Not a single negligent discharge so far. And 9 people trying to overpower one guy with a gun in a confined space is a good way to end up with lots of dead people.

[library_max]

108. But ten people trying to "defend themselves" by drawing and shooting

would be a much better way to end up with lots of dead people.

If nobody draws a gun, there's no difference between the two scenarios at all.

[MercutioATC]

50. THIS is a much more accurate scenario to propose:

It's August and you've been stuck in stop-and-go traffic for two hours. It's hot, horns are blowing, people yelling.

Do you feel safer if:

1) somebody MIGHT have a gun illegally, or

2) everybody's got a 9mm in their glove compartment?

The premise is flawed in the original question. It only works if you KNOW that the "suspicious"-looking person has a gun. Otherwise, what you have is damn near every elevator ride I've taken. There's usually one strange-looking person.

[JayS]

54. "stuck in stop-and-go traffic for two hours"

You have made yet another argument for light rail! :)

[immoderate]

67. The last time I was on an elevator with a suspicious looking person...

He leaned over to me and said: Hey buddy, what's the difference between a drunk and a pig?

Me: I don't know.

Suspicious: Well a pig won't fuck a drunk...


(True story.)

--IMM

[DoNotRefill]

77. mercutio....since CCW has become a reality....

for most of the country, how many murders by CCW holders have there been? Statistically, would you care to wager which group is safer to be around, people with CCWs, or the population at large?

[MercutioATC]

87. I realize CCW s a reality. Look at the crime stats for much of Europe,

where carrying firearms is illegal. How do they measure up?

I'm not anti-gun, but I don't feel more guns are the answer.

[Vladimir]

90. Average gun deaths per year in Europe

several hundred (UK, France, Germany averaged say). In America, >10,000. Population corrected works out about 10-20 times higher I think. Of course its not all about that - guns are legal in Switzerland, in fact everyone has to have a rifle at home, and yet homicide rates are low. So there is a societal angle too - but getting rid of guns would certainly be a start IMO.

[DoNotRefill]

97. Vlad, check Europe's non-gun homicide rate....

and compare it to the US's non-gun homicide rate. Guns aren't the problem.

[DoNotRefill]

96. mercutio, why not compare apples and apples

instead of apples and oranges?

Before the CCW revolution, crime rates in the US were far higher than they are afterwards.

And if you want to compare America and Europe, look at the US homicide rate in cases that DO NOT involve firearms. You'll find that the US's non-gun homicide rate far outstrips Europe's ENTIRE homicide rate. Guns aren't the problem. If they were, there wouldn't be a difference between non-gun homicide rates, and there's a HUGE difference.

[library_max]

110. Crime in the US went down because of demographics.

The population got older. Older people commit fewer crimes.

What are the exact numbers in this "huge" difference between US and European non-gun homicide rates?

[DoNotRefill]

124. I wouldn't DREAM of offering you my suspect figures...

I invite you to look it up. I suggest that you'll find that the non-gun homicide rate in the US is at least 3-4 times the European's TOTAL homicide rate (all on a per capita basis), and is often considerably greater than that.

[library_max]

135. OK, let's use those figures.

Non-gun homicides, 3-4 times higher. Gun homicides, 10-20 times higher. Guns may not be the entire problem, but they're clearly making an important contribution to the problem.

[DoNotRefill]

136. Wrong. There's no causation between guns and homicides.

America is, by it's nature, more violent than industrialized European nations. The tools are immaterial. The root of the problem is the issue, not the tools used.

[library_max]

141. Then why would the ratio of firearm homicides

be more than double the ratio of non-firearm homicides, using the numbers in each range most favorable to your argument?

Anyway, you can't outlaw the root, but you can outlaw the tool. You know perfectly well that there are whole classes of homicides that would be impossible without guns, and others that would be vastly more difficult and more survivable for the victims.

[DoNotRefill]

146. because for people who have decided to kill....

a firearm is a first choice. You cannot, however, state that if all firearms magically disappeared, that all firearms homicides wouldn't happen. Ever hear of substitution?

What class of homicide would be impossible without firearms?

[library_max]

148. "For people who have decided to kill, a firearm is first choice"

Now ask yourself, why would that be so?

Also, most homicides are not premeditated. Premeditated murder makes up a very small percentage of homicides.

Drive-by shootings would be a class of homicides impossible without firearms. Likewise walking into a Luby's and killing everyone there, or assassinating a public figure from 500 yards away.

[DoNotRefill]

154. Hmmmm....

drive by shootings? Luby's? Assassination? Wouldn't bombs be just as effective as a handgun? Say, a car bomb parked by the streetcorner you want to kill people on? Or say the OKC Federal Building? And wasn't the President of Chechnya just blown up by a bomb under the viewing stands at a military parade? Didn't the Columbine shooters bring a bunch of bombs with them, but leave them mostly unused because they were having too much fun with their guns?

guns used in drive-bys generally aren't very effective. A car bomb is. Walking into a building and shooting people is generally not very effective (especially if they have guns, too). Blowing the building up is. Shooting people from 500 yards away generally isn't very effective (I'm a gun nut that shoots a LOT, and can't hit much past 400 yards). If you know where your target is going to be, a bomb has a much better chance of success.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

[JayS]

155. If you are going to discuss the Lubys incident...

...you better be prepared to discuss the CHL issue. :)

[JayS]

150. "you can outlaw the tool"

In your region can you do a Ride-A-Long with the police? Make sure you don't get put on a patrol in the cushy part of town. I am also making the assumption that you do not live in Dime Box, Texas or anything.

Ask the officer after the Ride-A-Long what he/she thinks about outlawing the tool. Do it after so he/she does not wonder about you.

I can tell you about some of the murderers that chose an alternative way to kill...but you would not want to hear about it. It haunts me and I was not the one that had to deal with it.

[JayS]

137. Factor in our political heroes love of the...

...War On Drugs compared to other countries while you are doing your math. It gets interesting.

[Pithlet]

51. It's a dumb question.

I would think that if the "guns-are-no-more-dangerous-than-bathtubs" crowd can't come up with better ones, how can they ever win anyone over to their side? I swear, it seems to me like all their arguments are like this.

[JayS]

52. There are a lot better ones. This one does not fall into that...

...category.

[Pithlet]

55. You're right

It is definitely one of the worst I've heard. That's not saying much for the better ones, though ;)

[neuvocat]

56. How come soldiers in Iraq are still getting killed?

I mean, they're out in an open field and well armed, so its not like they're confined to an elevator space.

Besides, would a cop still feel on equal footing if he or she decided to answer number 2?

[Outward Bound]

59. "If guns are outlawed,

only the government will have guns." - Edward Abbey

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

71. And just HOW realistic IS that?

Hell, I live in a concealed carry state and I have never been in that situation (crazy person with gun on elevator).

And the chances of NINE people doing a concealed carry on one elevator, even HERE? Almost NIL.

What a stupid question. And I OWN two guns! (They never leave my house, though.)

[DaveSZ]

73. Yep

Gun control historically has a racist component.

[library_max]

111. What? Where'd that come from?

It certainly didn't have any relevance to the post is supposedly answered. Is there anything to support your statement? Because it's not too hard to point out the racism of many of the most vocal and well-known gun control opponents.

[DoNotRefill]

78. The problem isn't people who jump through the hoops to get a CCW...

the problem is the people who DON'T jump through the hoops and carry anyway.

[wuushew]

82. Do you think there is a great difference between criminals and the public?

They could be your neighbors or relatives. I divine criminals into two groups those who are criminally insane and commit crimes out of mental illness and those people who in most respects are like the great majority of citizens, sharing the same jobs, religion and lifestyle that you do. I feel it is inappropriate to lump all criminals into scorned classifications and say they do not consider firearms laws or social morays in their actions. Is classification of criminals black and white or is the spectrum the more likely case of a varied gray spectrum of moral and legal consequences.

[JayS]

95. There are shades of gray but the criminals that...

...we are mainly concerned with account for the majority of the problem. Whether they are insane or just evil matters, but not as much; they still have to be dealt with.



Consider these lovely specimens as an example:


June 10, 2004, 7:59A
Confession leads to murder charges
in dispute over tennis shoes
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2620165

A 20-year-old Harris County man has been charged with murder after five people were shot late Tuesday in a fight over a 3-year-old dispute about a pair of tennis shoes, sheriff's department officials said.

Manuel Arcides Sorto, of the 7200 block of Rio Blanco, confessed and was arrested Wednesday, Harris County sheriff's homicide detectives said.

The gunfire, which occurred in the 6600 block of Vialinda just before 11 p.m. Tuesday, killed 19-year-old Thomas Mendoza, detectives said.

None of the five shot was directly involved in the disputed tennis shoe swap, which occurred between two girls more than three years ago. But an argument and fight about that trade led to the gunfire, detectives said.

*SNIP*

[WLKjr]

83. Hmm.

well, I would feel, in all honesty, safer in a elevator with 8 people against one maniac. sure a couple, including myself might take a bullet, but you could easily overpower one stupid phuck.

if you have more guns in one enclosed area, you are more likely to get shot! duh

[WLKjr]

84. Plus

What a lot of people fail to realize is that we don't need new gun laws, we just need to ENFORCE ones that are currently on the books.

[Stockholm]

85. what planet do you americans live on?

The alternative "Nine people and you on an elevator, no one including yourself is armed".

Guns kill people, guns kill people, guns kill people, guns kill people....

[Vladimir]

89. You are so fucking right mate... n/t

[MI Cherie]

86. Which scenario would you feel safer in?

1. A nut case 100 yards away in the bushes with a sniper rifle intent on hitting as many human targets as possible?

OR

2. A nut case 100 yards away in the bushes with a knife or bat intent on hurting as many humans as he could get close enough to?

:eyes:

[Vladimir]

88. How about 3

10 people are on an elevator, and none have a gun? that's the situation in most elevators I use...

[stavka]

91. I be concerned about the weight limit of the elevator......

Ever see the decapitation scene in "Resident Evil"?

[Vladimir]

92. LOL! n/t

[rustydog]

98. Typical retard question from typical retards

I am a gun owner. I NEVER pack a concealed weapon.
I am in the security field and deal with bad guys on a daily basis.
I am in an unarmed (no handgun) position but have pepper-spray and an ASP baton. in 25 years of gang fights, car prowler arrests, domestic fights, Workplace-violence issues etc. I have had to display my baton once.
Guns are NOT the answer.

The correct question is: you are in an elevator with 9 others. One is armed and looking usspicious; (I guess holding an AK-47 would look suspicious in an elevator)
A. do you say, "hey dip-shit what's up your ass?"
B. "This is a .357 magnum, the most powerful handgun int he world...There is only one question you need to ask: Do I feel lucky?
Well, punk, do you?"
C. "Hey guys, this is my floor!"

[Endangered Specie]

102. 3. 9 people and you are on an elevator, no one is armed.

[Endangered Specie]

103. Anyone of decent intellect knows...

That having everyone carry guns does NOT make you safer, if it did, there'd be no gang violence, not to mention places like Iraq and Afghanistan, people carry guns around in the open all the time... would YOU feel safe like that.

[OpSomBlood]

105. The scenario is ridiculous, even to a pro-gun person.

Nobody is arguing that "everyone" should carry a gun. It should be left to the discretion of the individual.

There are places I do not go unarmed, but that I must go to anyway. I should have the right to prepare myself for something that hopefully won't happen.

I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. My family's and my personal safety are a much higher priority than anyone else's emotional comfort level. When I carry, you can't tell I'm carrying. So there's no reason for you to be uncomfortable.

[library_max]

113. But this is the SUV argument.

I should be able to make myself and my family safe and to hell with whatever danger that may end up causing other people. I trust my judgement, so why shouldn't you?

[OpSomBlood]

117. Like I said, it's an individual decision.

Supposedly in a free society, people can choose to arm themselves if they see fit. A pistol in my waistband is not a danger to anyone except a person threatening me or my family.

[Endangered Specie]

115. Sorry, but..

I just don't like the idea of concealed firearms in public. Im not anti-anti-gun mind you, but I think that goes a little too far.

[FeebMaster]

123. Better get used to it.

There aren't many states left without some form of carry permit system.

[JayS]

125. Would you prefer...

...that they be worn exposed? :)

[DoNotRefill]

128. why?

people with CCW permits are much less likely to commit crimes than the population at large.

[OpSomBlood]

129. If they are concealed, and not revealed except in self-defense...

...why should it bother you? By legal definition, "concealed" means "hidden from plain view."

[library_max]

145. Welcome to the Gungeon, Endangered Specie.

You probably thought you were in General Discussion, but this topic brought out the JPS regulars. And when they're around, expect to get gang-attacked for expressing any opinion, no matter how mild, with which they disagree.

[OpSomBlood]

151. You're the only one who sees it as us attacking.

Until you said that, it seemed like a pretty rational discussion to me.

[JayS]

153. No, use facts and you will be okay. Identify opinion as such...

...and you won't get slammed too hard. :)

[DoNotRefill]

126. depends on if I was an occupying soldier or not....

not to mention places like Iraq and Afghanistan, people carry guns around in the open all the time... would YOU feel safe like that.

[StephanKetz]

120. Stupid

question

[OpSomBlood]

132. Very.

And I'm pro-gun. Just a retarded scenario.