Go Back   AFA Forums > News and Social > News and Current Affairs

News and Current Affairs News reports related to (but not restricted to) religion, atheism and woo.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #71  
Old 12th October 2017, 12:08 PM
LadyGreen LadyGreen is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 93
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Funny how every violent criminal whos can sport more than a tan is labeled as a terrorist even if its not true but an acuall terrorist is not.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Like 142857 liked this post
  #72  
Old 12th October 2017, 12:22 PM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,131
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

DBD, is there any evidence (other than anecdotal or hypothetical) that owning firearms in a civilian setting can actually make you safer than not owning firearms?
__________________
".....If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

- Marcus Aurelius (claimed)
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12th October 2017, 01:15 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,820
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Quote:
Loki said View Post
Self defense isn't a valid reason to own a gun.

Agreed, but it can be argued that as long as nutters can have guns the only defense is another gun.


I have trained in armed and unarmed combat for many years, anyone without a gun attacking me would be in serious trouble, but the main point is not to validate a reason for owning a gun, it's simply to remove guns. With far less guns gun related crime would fall, the argument of self defense would look less and less valid, fewer people would own guns etc.


If you can't ban guns altogether because of opposition then you draw them down until owning guns seems pointless or more trouble than it's worth and eventually you get to the point where it's easy. But of course we are dealing with politics, so nothing is ever easy.
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
Like wolty liked this post
Thank The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  #74  
Old 12th October 2017, 01:55 PM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Dog v2.0 is my co-pilot
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 3,282
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Quote:
stevebrooks said View Post
Quote:
Loki said View Post
Self defense isn't a valid reason to own a gun.
Agreed, but it can be argued that as long as nutters can have guns the only defense is another gun.

I have trained in armed and unarmed combat for many years, anyone without a gun attacking me would be in serious trouble, but the main point is not to validate a reason for owning a gun, it's simply to remove guns. With far less guns gun related crime would fall, the argument of self defense would look less and less valid, fewer people would own guns etc.


If you can't ban guns altogether because of opposition then you draw them down until owning guns seems pointless or more trouble than it's worth and eventually you get to the point where it's easy. But of course we are dealing with politics, so nothing is ever easy.
Could one draw the inference that perhaps more emphasis should be placed on people desiring guns, having them prove that they are not nutters (or likely potential nutters)?
__________________

If the sleep of reason produces monsters, what does the sleep of unreason produce? - Guillermo Cabrera Infante

Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12th October 2017, 02:19 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,194
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Quote:
142857 said View Post
DBD, is there any evidence (other than anecdotal or hypothetical) that owning firearms in a civilian setting can actually make you safer than not owning firearms?
As I said, there is nothing wrong with the principle [in isolation], but in practical terms it is probably NOT safe, as the comparison between gun laws in the USA and Australia clearly demonstrate.

Of course, even this assumption of bearing arms for self defence assumes competence in firearms use and safety, which many firearms owners clearly lack.

[I think I covered this in an earlier post in another thread where the suggestion that a few hours training of teachers could make gun-toting teachers successful defenders of schools against terrorist attack.

Only prolonged, serious firearms training [as found in some of the better military and police organisations] could render a gun owner relatively safe in terms of protection of self and the community from gun violence.

As I said, there are a lot of caveats on the practicality of owning arms for the safety of individuals and communities. In terms of most, or nearly all US states, the requirements of safe and responsible gun ownership are not even close to being met.

Last but not least the ideology of US gun culture as it stands poses a clear and present danger to the community. As Hack and others have pointed out, with evidence and statistics.

None of this negates my original point, that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with gun ownership for purely defensive purposes. The devil however, is in the detail. Is the gun user of sound mind? Has the gun user had a history of violence, etc, etc. The objections are of course legion, and almost all are totally legitimate concerns, which the US NRA have chosen to ignore, ridicule and dismiss without reason or evidence.

Nor do I argue that force [lethal or not] is necessarily the best or the only way to respond to violence, from guns or any other source. Even when confronted with firearms violence, sub-lethal weapons, negotiators, counselling of at risk groups and many other measures should be tried first.

In effect, the gun culture of the US embodies the vigilante concept of a "righteous shoot" thus perverting the concept of self-defence and usurping the role of the law and the state. [The shooter is in effect, judge, jury and executioner].

Even with "rational states' with well-disciplined militaries, the density of weapons in times of tension can lead to accidental escalations or even a state of war.

At the civilian level this is an even worse problem [much worse], because most civilians lack the discipline required to use firearms safely, and as a last resort response to gun violence for the only and express purpose of minimising death and injury.

The US Constitution did state a well-regulated militia, and as we know, this is not some insane, drug addled or sociopath with a house full of automatic weapons, but certain section of the US community [and the NRA] imagine this is what it says, or at least means.

Having lost some of my hearing in one ear due to an accident on tactical training in the Army, I am well aware of the consequences of poorly trained or undisciplined weapons use!

Justifiably, a lot of folks in the USA and elsewhere are outraged by the carnage caused by poorly conceived and administered gun laws. My motivation here is to get the reasoning right, which is why I challenged Loki's notion that:-

Quote:
Self defense isn't a valid reason to own a gun
I think given that self-defense is a valid notion, then the means to do so naturally follows, but it does not
Quote:
have
to be a gun or weapon.

Violence does tend to beget violence, and most claims to self-defence, especially via weapons are anything but.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12th October 2017, 04:50 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,820
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
As I said, there is nothing wrong with the principle [in isolation], but in practical terms it is probably NOT safe, as the comparison between gun laws in the USA and Australia clearly demonstrate.
In my years training I have trained to defend myself against knives, clubs, sticks, staves, even closely held guns, I don't own a single one of these as an implement to defend myself, unless you count disemboweling a cooked chicken as self defense

The difference here of course is "training." You can go out in the USA and buy a gun and the guy in the gun shop will show you how to use it, that's basically the extent of training. I think a good principal is, the deadlier the weapon, the more difficult it is to use properly. I would suggest the training given to police is barely adequate to manage a gun, let alone use it properly.

So you are giving people a weapon that takes not weeks but at least months to learn how to use properly by itself, and this is without them being exposed to an emergency situation where the panic is liable to make you forget every single thing you have learnt, because while you have learned to use a gun properly, you haven't actually learned to use a gun in an emergency situation, which is an entirely different kettle of fish, and which again could take many months or even years of training.

So I would say, does simply owning a gun make you safer? No. Does learning how to use a gun make you safer? No.

Imagine now if all those people in the grounds had guns and started shooting back? Would the injuries have been less or actually more? hard to say, but I think you could certainly see a hotel without a single intact window!
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12th October 2017, 05:36 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,194
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Quote:
stevebrooks said View Post
In my years training I have trained to defend myself against knives, clubs, sticks, staves, even closely held guns, I don't own a single one of these as an implement to defend myself, unless you count disemboweling a cooked chicken as self defense

The difference here of course is "training." You can go out in the USA and buy a gun and the guy in the gun shop will show you how to use it, that's basically the extent of training. I think a good principal is, the deadlier the weapon, the more difficult it is to use properly. I would suggest the training given to police is barely adequate to manage a gun, let alone use it properly.

So you are giving people a weapon that takes not weeks but at least months to learn how to use properly by itself, and this is without them being exposed to an emergency situation where the panic is liable to make you forget every single thing you have learnt, because while you have learned to use a gun properly, you haven't actually learned to use a gun in an emergency situation, which is an entirely different kettle of fish, and which again could take many months or even years of training.

So I would say, does simply owning a gun make you safer? No. Does learning how to use a gun make you safer? No.

Imagine now if all those people in the grounds had guns and started shooting back? Would the injuries have been less or actually more? hard to say, but I think you could certainly see a hotel without a single intact window!
I think we are pretty much on the same page Stevie.

Training includes retraining/practice. Some ordinary police are little better than civilians, and even some SWAT teams are under-trained or lack sufficient practice.

My intent here was to demonstrate that unless one has special and sustained training [not only in technical firearms skills, but ethics/doctrine/ideology of a suitable type], firearms is a no-no for most people and may even be a hazard to themselves and others.

One other issue is the right [if one is of sound mind] to self-euthanasia. But a gun is not a particularly ideal way to check out, given the mostly unreasonable attitude most jurisdictions have around the world to this issue. [And of course, in many situations, one may not be physically capable of suicide by firearm].

I know that if my "use-by" date comes up, I may go on a bungee-jumping holiday and cut halfway through the "rubber band" thingie.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12th October 2017, 06:21 PM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 802
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

I think I am late to the party but here are two articles I found insightful

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room...y-hook-effect/
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 13th October 2017, 09:46 AM
wadaye wadaye is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,570
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Quote:
stevebrooks said View Post
Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
As I said, there is nothing wrong with the principle [in isolation], but in practical terms it is probably NOT safe, as the comparison between gun laws in the USA and Australia clearly demonstrate.
In my years training I have trained to defend myself against knives, clubs, sticks, staves, even closely held guns, I don't own a single one of these as an implement to defend myself, unless you count disemboweling a cooked chicken as self defense

The difference here of course is "training." You can go out in the USA and buy a gun and the guy in the gun shop will show you how to use it, that's basically the extent of training. I think a good principal is, the deadlier the weapon, the more difficult it is to use properly. I would suggest the training given to police is barely adequate to manage a gun, let alone use it properly.

So you are giving people a weapon that takes not weeks but at least months to learn how to use properly by itself, and this is without them being exposed to an emergency situation where the panic is liable to make you forget every single thing you have learnt, because while you have learned to use a gun properly, you haven't actually learned to use a gun in an emergency situation, which is an entirely different kettle of fish, and which again could take many months or even years of training.

So I would say, does simply owning a gun make you safer? No. Does learning how to use a gun make you safer? No.

Imagine now if all those people in the grounds had guns and started shooting back? Would the injuries have been less or actually more? hard to say, but I think you could certainly see a hotel without a single intact window!
Imagine a scenario where everyone starts shooting at where they think the shooting os coming from. The potential massacre would be extraordinary. Then if the police thought a person holding and using a gun might be involved they would shoot in that direction too.

It is remarkable that with 300m plus gubs held by the public the only firearms that were actually of any use were held by law enforcement officers
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins

Last edited by wadaye; 13th October 2017 at 09:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 13th October 2017, 10:05 AM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Dog v2.0 is my co-pilot
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 3,282
Default Re: Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
Imagine a scenario where everyone starts shooting at where they think the shooting os coming from. The potential massacre would be extraordinary. Then if the police thought a person holding and using a gun might be involved they would shoot in that direction too.

It is remarkable that with 300m plus gubs held by the public the only firearms that were actually of any use were held by law enforcement officers
So much of what is regarded as security is actually "security theatre".

More reading here from Bruce Schneier.
__________________

If the sleep of reason produces monsters, what does the sleep of unreason produce? - Guillermo Cabrera Infante

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.