[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

You can say the same about guns. For instance, how likely is it that your gun will end out being involved in an accident or petty domestic dispute then actually used in self defence?

What a surprise, an anti-gun researcher publishes a paper that finds gun to be more harmful than beneficial when judged by a narrow criteria said anti-gun researcher set up

This has been gone over too many times in this thread already, there is simply no meaningful/practical data out there to objectively compare the benefits and downsides of private gun ownership, unless you can produce one, I suggest you drop this.

Also, I love how you went off on a red-herring instead of addressing my specific response to your faulty premises

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

It's easy to cherry pick individual stories to support your position.

Oh ffs, YOU are the one doing the cherry picking here. YOU are the one basing off his entire argument on specific and narrow scenarios. I point out the fact that your idea doesn't work in all (and very common) cases and gave examples, and you accuse me of cherry picking?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Go ahead. But I think my model made sense. Keep in mind, that the person who fires second can only fire if the first man misses, so right there they only might have a 70% chance of "victory"(if the attacker has a 30% chance of success). So they'll always be at a disadvantage compared to the attacker. I count a non-debilitating injury (IE an injury after which you're still able to fire back) as a "miss" here.

I suggest you stop trying to talk about gun fights if you don't actually know how they work, and are not interested in doing your homework to learn what it's like IRL.

"The person who fires second can only fire if the first man misses"? What kind of joke is this? You're not AWP'ing it up in Counterstrike ok? Get that Hollywood image of a guy getting tossed in the air and dies whenever a bullet hits him in any part of his body out of your head. Hitting a guy in his "T-box" is the only physiological sure way of immediately stopping an enemy from shooting back, no ifs or buts.

And no, nobody goes for the fking Tbox in a firefight, 'cause it's not practical to try to aim for that tiny area in one.

Seriously, leave the tactical talk to the experts and those who knows what they're talking about before you make yourself look even worse.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I won't believe you if you don't explain why. Why should I?

Because any full on meaningful discussion on tactical scenarios is far beyond the scope of this thread (or this forum for that matter), and frankly requires those in the discussion to be at least somewhat knowledgeable on the subject. No offense, at your demonstrated level of knowledge in the area, it won't even be a discussion.

Suffice to say that your impossibly broad and sweeping generalization of a statement that "those who shoot first are always at an advantage" is about as meaningful and accurate as "I won a match of blackjack by asking for two additional cards, therefore I will always win a match of blackjack by asking for two cards".

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Usually on people who are asleep. For a person who is awake and alert, anything other then a gun requires a certain amount of skill and strength.

strength yes, and it's something that often times the victims will lack. Skill? not so much.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Please debunk it then. Don't say "that's a TV myth" without explaining why.

or you could've tried to do a little homework and do some research on the subject

When people pass out after they get hit in the head is due to cerebral concussion - brain slamming into the skull. However, not all cases of concussion leads to unconsciousness, despite what you may see on TV. I've seen guys who suffered multiple concussions from IEDs but never passed out. I've personally had a concussion, and did not pass out, though it would've been nice if I did. You see it happen to athletes all the time too: a catcher in baseball who gets hit by a foul-tip in the face, football or soccer players from collisions. Many suffers concussions, yet never lost consciousness.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

So what? It's the exception that proves the rule. The other way around would not be newsworthy.

naw, what made it newsworthy is the hilarious video that caught the criminals running and falling over each other as they tried to run away.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

And rather then saying that what I'm saying is oversimplified and flawed, why don't you take a moment and tell me why? Do you expect me to just believe you without any logical argument to back it up?

I take the time to try to explain why I believe I am correct, I would hope that you would return the favour, how else am I to learn why I am incorrect?

...ok, let's see if this helps.

When you want to discuss specific tactical scenarios such as who and what would be an advantage, you need to take into account the specific location and its surrounding environments, the nature of the confrontation, the equipment available to both sides, the number and skill of people that are involved, the mental state of those that are involved, and the goal that each want to accomplish. Each is unique in every case, and all factors would have to be considered. Now if your idea is two guys standing in front of each other wild-wild-west style duking it out, then yea, you probably would prefer to be the guy who shoots first, even though in all practicality it means little if you can't put down accurate fire.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

If it was hard to get a gun, those numbers would be less then 10%. And look at how many murders are committed with a gun!

I'm gonna guess you pulled that 10% from where the sun-don't-shine again. And yes, many murders are committed with a gun, because it's the most effective way to do so. However, that does not mean that those murders would not have been committed in the absence of firearms, to assume so is to commit a logical fallacy, this has already been discussed numerous times already in this thread.


Well, clearly other countries are not suffering from waves of crime epidemics because we lack the means to defend ourselves. I think your gun might make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer?

christ, I just listed out all those factors which all directly influences violent crime rates, and it just went straight over your head, and you wonder why I've grown tired of trying to explain things to you?

Again, why don't you explain to me in my ignorance?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Then how should we prevent the next James Holmes or Seung Hui Cho from getting a gun? Or should we not even bother?

It would be impossible, and frankly is the wrong way to go about it. Those people need to be identified and given help and support by their friends and families or social services BEFORE they decide to become a mass murderer. Once they've gone down that road, the presence or lack thereof of firearms matters little, as they will simply seek other means of causing mass damage. To be honest, I'd much prefer they stick to small arms like they have for the most part. Should all these mass-murderers change their mind and start using alternatives like home-made explosives or chemicals, we would have much, much higher death tolls.

You think that 12 dead at Aurora was bad? if Holmes had forgo his shooting rampage and instead used his car as a VBIED, we'd likely be looking at near triple digit dead at the minimum, if not more.

And more than that, at some point you have to draw the line for what's acceptable for government and society to intrude into the private affairs of lawful citizens. You would subject every gun owner and prospective gun owner for mandatory psychiatric evaluations because a few dozen people died in a couple mass shooting incidents. Then why not mandatory breathalyzer at every bar and restaurant when patrons leave, and every car before it can be started? far more people are killed by drunk drivers every year. And while we're at it, why not a mandatory wakefulness test every hour to make sure drivers aren't sleepy? since a tired driver is just as dangerous as a drunk one. Also, mandatory cellphone jammer in every vehicle to prevent texting-and-driving.

Same thing with smoking cigarettes, why not ban it considering how many people die from it every year? and the strain smokers put on the health care system which has to care for them?

Heck, if you want psych evals so bad, I'd say priests should get them first! to make sure they're not pedofiles! same thing with all teachers, after all, nothing is as important as our children, we must make sure that there are no molesters hidden in their midst!

You see where this goes?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Then there's really no barrier to any hardened criminal or psychopath getting his paws on a gun. You might as well not have any gun registration at all. It restricts only law abiding citizens, while criminals(and more importantly their weapon suppliers) are completely unhindered.

Because there is no barrier you can erect that would stop a hardened criminal from getting his hands on a gun in the first place, a resale ban is no exception.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

How else would you stop guns getting into the hands of criminals?

Easy, invent a time machine, go back in time and kill everyone that would invent gunpowder