Political Posts

[RichardGibbons]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

Then why so critical?

 

I think it's largely because many Canadians don't like the idea of easily-preventable gun deaths, while many Americans see it as an acceptable trade-off, as Charlie Kirk did.

 

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

 One thing for sure, if a bad guy threatens me with a gun, I'm better off with one than without one.

 

I wonder if this is actually true. I suspect you having a gun might increase your chance of death from such an encounter. Even if that is the case, I guess it depends on your definition of "better off"--gaining an increased feeling of control at the cost of a higher chance of death.

 

I'm actually quite curious about this, but it's probably hard to find out the answer in a scientific way, because "having a gun" is likely correlated with "likely to do something that gets yourself killed when being threatened with a gun."

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

I think it's largely because many Canadians don't like the idea of easily-preventable gun deaths, while many Americans see it as an acceptable trade-off, as Charlie Kirk did.

 

 

I wonder if this is actually true. I suspect you having a gun might increase your chance of death from such an encounter. Even if that is the case, I guess it depends on your definition of "better off"--gaining an increased feeling of control at the cost of a higher chance of death.

 

I'm actually quite curious about this, but it's probably hard to find out the answer in a scientific way, because "having a gun" is likely correlated with "likely to do something that gets yourself killed when being threatened with a gun."

Huh?  No science required when someone points a gun at me.  Shoot first, ask questions later.   Something about survival that trumps all else.  Ain't no do-overs.

[RichardGibbons]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

Huh?  No science required when someone points a gun at me.  Shoot first, ask questions later.   Something about survival that trumps all else.  Ain't no do-overs.

 

Yep, this is my point. I think you're significantly more likely to die in this scenario than just handing over your wallet.

[73 Reds]

Just now, RichardGibbons said:

 

Yep, this is my point. I think you're significantly more likely to die in this scenario than just handing over your wallet.

I think YOU'D be more likely to die.  OTOH, I'd probably walk away.

[cwericb]

1 minute ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Yep, this is my point. I think you're significantly more likely to die in this scenario than just handing over your wallet.

 

I wonder how much training American gun owners are required to have?

[RichardGibbons]

Just now, 73 Reds said:

I think YOU'D be more likely to die.  OTOH, I'd probably walk away.

 

Yep, this is what I meant when I said, "having a gun" is likely correlated with "likely to do something that gets yourself killed when being threatened with a gun." 

[73 Reds]

Just now, cwericb said:

 

I wonder how much training American gun owners are required to have?

No need to wonder.  Every state varies.

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Yep, this is what I meant when I said, "having a gun" is likely correlated with "likely to do something that gets yourself killed when being threatened with a gun." 

Only those not prepared to use it.

[cubsfan]

24 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

I think it's largely because many Canadians don't like the idea of easily-preventable gun deaths, while many Americans see it as an acceptable trade-off, as Charlie Kirk did.

 

 

I wonder if this is actually true. I suspect you having a gun might increase your chance of death from such an encounter. Even if that is the case, I guess it depends on your definition of "better off"--gaining an increased feeling of control at the cost of a higher chance of death.

 

I'm actually quite curious about this, but it's probably hard to find out the answer in a scientific way, because "having a gun" is likely correlated with "likely to do something that gets yourself killed when being threatened with a gun."

 

You're leaving out the racial components.  Black men account for 6% of the population, but 60+% of the murders by shooting. Most of those are inner city - Chicago has the toughest gun laws in America - but most have illegal hand guns.  White males die from guns too - 80% are suicides. 

 

@73 Reds has it correct - Americans need protection against criminals that could care less what guns laws are in place.  Heck, in Chicago, if a black is caught with a gun, they just take it away.

[RichardGibbons]

5 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Only those not prepared to use it.

 

Yep, that's the attitude I mean. I suspect being eager to engage in a gun fight is likely to increase your chance of being shot when confronted with someone else holding a gun.

 

I'm curious. In this fantasy, when you grab for your holstered gun, does it surprise the person aiming the gun at your chest? Is that why they're not shooting you? Or they're bad enough to try to rob you, but not bad enough to pull the trigger while you're fumbling away? Is it your belief that they're not prepared to use it, while you are?

 

That said, everyone dies eventually. Being shot on the street while potentially killing a "bad guy" is a pretty good way to go, particularly if you don't have anything worthwhile happening in your life.

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Yep, that's the attitude I mean. I suspect being eager to engage in a gun fight is likely to increase your chance of being shot when confronted with someone else holding a gun.

 

I'm curious. In this fantasy, when you grab for your holstered gun, does it surprise the person aiming the gun at your chest? Is that why they're not shooting you? Or they're bad enough to try to rob you, but not bad enough to pull the trigger while you're fumbling away? Is it your belief that they're not prepared to use it, while you are?

 

That said, everyone dies eventually. Being shot on the street while potentially killing a "bad guy" is a pretty good way to go, particularly if you don't have anything worthwhile happening in your life.

Hard to respond to that(!)  So I won't.  But guns don't kill; people do.  Restricting guns only helps the bad guys.  There are countries like Israel where literally everyone born and raised there owns or owned a gun.  You can't walk down the street for 5 minutes without seeing someone carrying an oozie. Yet almost no gun deaths except in Arab villages.  So like I said before, I don't criticize you or anyone for not owning a gun or wanting to be prepared to use one.  But don't blame those of us who do.

[cwericb]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

Only those not prepared to use it.

 

So shoot first and ask questions later? Would seem a path to spending the rest of one's life behind bars if someone points a toy gun at you. 

 

So gun laws differ by state? That sounds a little crazy - you could have 50 different sets of laws regarding firearms, and in some cases, one set of laws on one side of a neighbourhood and a different set of laws down the street.

 

Is firearm training not mandatory in all states?

[73 Reds]

Just now, cwericb said:

 

So shoot first and ask questions later? Would seem a path to spending the rest of one's life behind bars if someone points a toy gun at you. 

 

So gun laws differ by state? That sounds a little crazy - you could have 50 different sets of laws regarding firearms, and in some cases, one set of laws on one side of a neighbourhood and a different set of laws down the street.

 

Is firearm training not mandatory in all states?

Rudimentary training is required everywhere as far as I know.  The actual extent of what is mandatory varies by State.  Easy enough to look up if you're interested.  

[RichardGibbons]

3 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

You're leaving out the racial components.  Black men account for 6% of the population, but 60+% of the murders by shooting. Most of those are inner city - Chicago has the toughest gun laws in America - but most have illegal hand guns.  White males die from guns too - 80% are suicides. 

 

I'm 100% sure of the point you're trying to make here. Is it just that, as long as you're white, it's cool because you're unlikely to be killed by a gun unless you want to be? Or more like, "if you group people by race, everyone gets what they deserve because people are just killing (or not killing) their own race."

 

3 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

@73 Reds has it correct - Americans need protection against criminals that could care less what guns laws are in place.  Heck, in Chicago, if a black is caught with a gun, they just take it away.

 

Yeah, that it might be a completely sensible position if you start from the premise that guns shouldn't be hard to get. Like, if anyone has guns, everyone should have guns. Or Heinlein--"An armed society is a polite society."

[cubsfan]

1 minute ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

I'm 100% sure of the point you're trying to make here. Is it just that, as long as you're white, it's cool because you're unlikely to be killed by a gun unless you want to be? Or more like, "if you group people by race, everyone gets what they deserve because people are just killing (or not killing) their own race."

 

 

Yeah, that it might be a completely sensible position if you start from the premise that guns shouldn't be hard to get. Like, if anyone has guns, everyone should have guns. Or Heinlein--"An armed society is a polite society."

 

No - you are completely missing the point.

 

The people that suffer the most are in the black community - which is awful.  If you are a black male, 90% of the time, you are killed by another black male.  And if you are a black male, you are 12X more likely to be shot and killed than a white male.

 

Certainly if you live in a major urban area - you might want to carry a firearm to protect yourself - as @73 Reds is suggesting.

[RichardGibbons]

10 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Hard to respond to that(!)  So I won't.  But guns don't kill; people do.  Restricting guns only helps the bad guys.  There are countries like Israel where literally everyone born and raised there owns or owned a gun.  You can't walk down the street for 5 minutes without seeing someone carrying an oozie. Yet almost no gun deaths except in Arab villages.  So like I said before, I don't criticize you or anyone for not owning a gun or wanting to be prepared to use one.  But don't blame those of us who do.

 

Yeah, I don't blame anyone who owns a gun--I've never lived in a society where it's commonplace, so maybe I would if I did.

 

I actually just find the math of life and death situations interesting. Like, if you're held at gunpoint by a stranger wanting a wallet, what strategy will result in the best chance of going home to your family? Or alternatively, if you are creating a new country, what are laws that will minimize bad gun deaths without getting rid of many good gun deaths?

 

Because I'm kind of with you with the "prepared to use it" argument. I'm open to using whatever level of force seems required to protect my family's lives. But my primary goal is to protect their lives, not use force, so I'm interested in what I can do to maximize that probability.

 

I do like that, in Canada, the probability of me needing to deal with a bad guy with a gun is tiny compared to the USA, even if people seem to think that restricting guns only helps bad guys. I struggle to explain that discrepancy without explanations related to gun restrictions. Maybe Canadians are just nicer, so the bad guys decide not to use guns when committing their crimes?

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Yeah, I don't blame anyone who owns a gun--I've never lived in a society where it's commonplace, so maybe I would if I did.

 

I actually just find the math of life and death situations interesting. Like, if you're held at gunpoint by a stranger wanting a wallet, what strategy will result in the best chance of going home to your family? Or alternatively, if you are creating a new country, what are laws that will minimize bad gun deaths without getting rid of many good gun deaths?

 

Because I'm kind of with you with the "prepared to use it" argument. I'm open to using whatever level of force seems required to protect my family's lives. But my primary goal is to protect their lives, not use force, so I'm interested in what I can do to maximize that probability.

 

I do like that, in Canada, the probability of me needing to deal with a bad guy with a gun is tiny compared to the USA, even if people seem to think that restricting guns only helps bad guys. I struggle to explain that discrepancy without explanations related to gun restrictions. Maybe Canadians are just nicer, so the bad guys decide not to use guns when committing their crimes?

Canadians by and large are nice.  But I don't know what a "good" gun death is.  The goal for anyone but bad guys is not to inflict maximum harm and death.  That's precisely why I want a gun - to hopefully offset any threat.  Doesn't even mean I have to use it.  The idea that someone coming to steal my wallet would cause me to shoot them dead is kind of silly in and of itself; all depends on every other fact and circumstance surrounding the incident and the level of perceived threat to life and limb.  Most people don't carry much in their wallets worth stealing anymore.  Instinct suggests that most gun deaths are due to some other cause.  The goal is not to become a victim of whatever that cause may be.

[RichardGibbons]

13 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

No - you are completely missing the point.

 

The people that suffer the most are in the black community - which is awful.  If you are a black male, 90% of the time, you are killed by another black male.  And if you are a black male, you are 12X more likely to be shot and killed than a white male.

 

Certainly if you live in a major urban area - you might want to carry a firearm to protect yourself - as @73 Reds is suggesting.

 

Okay, so I think you're trying to say, "the desirability of carrying a gun depends on the probability of encountering gun violence--if you're more likely to encounter it, you should be more willing to carry a gun."  And the stuff about race is just shorthand for expressing that different people have different probabilities of encountering gun violence.

 

Is that right?  (I think I agree with that--if everyone has a gun, I should probably have one too.)

[Marco Van Basten]

4 hours ago, cwericb said:

No but Marco Van Basten  would be concerned as he would be defenseless in a bathing suit. (as per up thread).

Listen, you are a tough guy?  O'k, spend a month in a neighborhood of my choosing spending a dozen hours a day outside.    Let's see how you survive.  

[RichardGibbons]

2 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Canadians by and large are nice.  But I don't know what a "good" gun death is.  The goal for anyone but bad guys is not to inflict maximum harm and death.  That's precisely why I want a gun - to hopefully offset any threat.  Doesn't even mean I have to use it.  The idea that someone coming to steal my wallet would cause me to shoot them dead is kind of silly in and of itself; all depends on every other fact and circumstance surrounding the incident and the level of perceived threat to life and limb.  Most people don't carry much in their wallets worth stealing anymore.  Instinct suggests that most gun deaths are due to some other cause.  The goal is not to become a victim of whatever that cause may be.

 

The deaths of animals while hunting would be most of the "good" gun deaths. But for human deaths, I'd say good deaths are guns being used to prevent a violent threat. e.g. shooting a home invader, a mass murderer, kidnapper, or whatever. Most deaths caused by police gunfire are good gun deaths.

 

The wallet scenario is the fun one for gun control, because I agree that you absolutely wouldn't want to shoot them dead if you could be certain they only wanted your wallet. And in Canada, you generally don't need to shoot someone dead, because there largely isn't a serious risk to your life because nobody's pointing a gun at you.

 

In contrast, in the USA, there's a higher chance someone's pointing a gun at you, which increases the risk of death, even if they say they just want your wallet. So, it makes sense to use more lethal force in that scenario. That's why, while the numbers of robberies in New York and London are similar, the chance of dying in a robbery is 54 times higher in New York.

[73 Reds]

7 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

The deaths of animals while hunting would be most of the "good" gun deaths. But for human deaths, I'd say good deaths are guns being used to prevent a violent threat. e.g. shooting a home invader, a mass murderer, kidnapper, or whatever. Most deaths caused by police gunfire are good gun deaths.

 

The wallet scenario is the fun one for gun control, because I agree that you absolutely wouldn't want to shoot them dead if you could be certain they only wanted your wallet. And in Canada, you generally don't need to shoot someone dead, because there largely isn't a serious risk to your life because nobody's pointing a gun at you.

 

In contrast, in the USA, there's a higher chance someone's pointing a gun at you, which increases the risk of death, even if they say they just want your wallet. So, it makes sense to use more lethal force in that scenario. That's why, while the numbers of robberies in New York and London are similar, the chance of dying in a robbery is 54 times higher in New York.

OK, so if the bad guys have guns so should those of us who want guns for protection.  Prohibition didn't work to prevent alcohol consumption so why would restrictive gun laws prevent bad guys from acquiring guns?   We need to treat the bad guys, many of whom are guilty of poor mental health, poor upbringings, poor education, or a combination thereof.  Its not the guns.

[Spekulatius]

6 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

I cannot speak for the entire US.  In NYC and its suburbs, people would laugh at your sister's salary and benefits package.  NYC public school teachers contribute zero to their health care coverage, salary for 1st year teachers = USD 68,902 for those with bachelor degrees and USD 77,455 for those with masters.  Teachers with experience earn more.  For instance a teacher with 8 years of experience and masters earns $103,291 USD and $124K with 15 years of experience.  Oh, and as for pensions, an acquaintance retired after 40 years of teaching at 65, receives a $150K per year pension.  

NYC is not representative in terms of both salaries paid, as well the living cost. I know some some teachers leave NC because salaries for teachers are miserable here. Starting salaries are around $40K and change but it depends a bit on location.

[RichardGibbons]

7 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Prohibition didn't work to prevent alcohol consumption so why would restrictive gun laws prevent bad guys from acquiring guns?

 

Because reality says it does. You have basically every country in the the entire developed world as evidence.

 

(Of course, in the USA, you already have guns, and it's unclear if you can reverse that, but I think it's pretty unlikely that you could. So it's kind of a moot point for the USA, but it suggest that other countries should be loathe to follow the USA's strategy when it comes to guns.)

[RichardGibbons]

I guess the other dimension of it is that "bad guys" have degrees of badness.

 

Organized crime associates will have always have guns, regardless of the law. But, if guns are restricted, every corner drug pusher or petty criminal drug addict won't. And there's much more of the latter, so giving them guns makes a huge difference in bad gun outcomes.

Edited December 30, 2025 by RichardGibbons
Typo

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

Rudimentary training is required everywhere as far as I know.  The actual extent of what is mandatory varies by State.  Easy enough to look up if you're interested.  

Not really. You can open carry a gun in NC without permit. For concealed carry in NC you need a permit and to get a permit you need to pass mandatory safety training. In CA, you need to pass a safety training course to acquire a gun. Concealed carry permits are very hard to get there.

 

I think NH is another state that does not require training for open carry permits.