Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGun Owner Intervenes When Drunk Diner Pulls Out Knife
OKMULGEE, Oklahoma - Police have arrested a man they said pulled a knife inside an Okmulgee restaurant filled with customers.
Employees at Debi's Filling Station off U.S. Highway 75 said one of those customers stepped in to help.
Employees said the man reached for a knife in his right pocket.
Fortunately, there was another diner sitting in a booth who had a concealed-carry license and a weapon of his own.
http://www.newson6.com/story/28143265/okmulgee-police-gun-owner-intervenes-when-drunk-diner-pulls-out-knife
A quote further down in the article says it perfectly: "in this situation the good guy had the gun and helped diffuse the situation.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Drunk guy is looking for trouble. Pulls out a gun in a diner. Good guy with gun also pulls out his gun. What happens?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Justice will be done! The tree of liberty shall drink deeply this day!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)the Little Shop of Horrors?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Why don't you cite just one time where that actually happened?
kcci
(35 posts)Capital idea.
DonP
(6,185 posts)You gun control fans seem to have a real, therapy worthy issue dealing with reality, instead of your overly vivid imaginations.
Of course they also gloat over accidental deaths by firearm too and that makes them truly special, compassionate people.
After 30 years of concealed carry in some states, we're all still waiting for just one of those "cops don't know who to shoot" or "multiple concealed carry holders cause blood bath" scenarios in the real world.
No wonder gun control is a loser for over 2 decades.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)Pathetic, ineffective and verging on violating the SoP again?
Best run back to your safe haven Freddie.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Avoiding the issue of supporting the ever so "liberal" NRA is common among some folk.
You forget this is the safe haven.
DonP
(6,185 posts)You guys spout "NRA Talking Points" like some crazed parrot, when you can't say anything else without looking clueless. But you never seem to be able to produce any actual examples.
Just like that parrot, when in doubt squawk louder and louder, and hope no one notices you have nothing to add.
Perhaps you can just cut and paste some of the "NRA playbook gun propaganda" I'm reading from?
We're all just laughing at you and your friends incredibly silly made up stories about; "Yeah, well, but what if these guys had this or those CCW guys did that and shot 12 nuns in a van with orphans by accident with a bazooka". "See, Gunz R' bad"
Waiting for the NRA Propaganda proof and some of those many stories of; "cops not knowing who to shoot" or "ccw holders shooting each other" ... and waiting.
Still pathetic and ineffective, Squawk!
No wonder no one needs to take you seriously.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Defending the NRA, how precious.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Business as usual, when asked for evidence to support your arguments you are unable to do so. *yawn*
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)when it is demonstrated that you are unable to support your arguments you run away in sheer terror.......*yawn*.......
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You mean saying the same thing over and over without adding anything to the conversation?
DonP
(6,185 posts)Interesting, but not surprising
Squawk! Squawk!
No surprise You got nothin'
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)No it really is not
Notice it does not say all groups, right?
Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.
Notice no mention of "safe haven", correct?
1 Hoyt
Now here is one that does and I am sure you like this one much better.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262
1 hack89
2 Eleanors38
3 Crepuscular
4 Bay Boy
5 ManiacJoe
6 bossy22
7 Straw Man
8 oneshooter
9 Duckhunter935
10 friendly_iconoclast
11 rrneck
12 customerserviceguy
13 ProgressiveProfessor
14 sarisataka
15 appal_jack
16 Travis_0004
17 geckosfeet
18 Hangingon
19 NYC_SKP
20 Jenoch
21 spin
22 shedevil69taz
23 SoutherDem
24 Lurks Often
25 ileus
26 Recursion
27 SQUEE
28 MO_Moderate
29 S_B_Jackson
30 HALO141
31 Jgarrick
32 Valakut
33 arst1
34 Nuclear Unicorn
35 TupperHappy
36 pipoman
37 yeoman6987
38 Laelth
39 IronGate
40 VScott
41 GGJohn
42 Shamash
43 libvoter87
44 kcci
45 clffrdjk
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)kcci
(35 posts)Is there a context I'm missing here?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)He gave up because he had a knife and the good guy elevated this to the level of gun-fight. What if the bad guy had brought a gun to a gun-fight?
An armed society is a polite society only as long as one armed guy cannot take on the rest of society:
You have a knife? It only takes a guy with a bar-stool to keep you "polite". Or a guy with a billard-queue. Or a guy with a thick jacket. Or a guy who knows martial arts. Or...
You have a gun? Well, the only thing that keeps you "polite" is another gun.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... let's analyze your scenario. Does knife-guy fold up and go limp when you produce your barstool? Or your billiard-cue, or your supposed martial arts skill? ("These hands are lethal weapons!"
No, he says "Fuck you, jack!" and the fight is on. Somebody ends up hurt, possibly dead.
When the gun was produced, knife-guy left. That's the desired outcome.
A thick jacket? Yeah, that'll work. Where do you get this stuff?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The good guy had a better weapon. That is all.
The bad guy had to yield to someone more powerful.
What if the good guy had produced a nail-gun? Or pepper-spray? Or a taser? Or a cross-bow? Or a sword? Absolutely same outcome. The fact that the good guy used a gun doesn't influence the story a bit.
Now, what if the bad guy had owned a gun?
How is the good guy supposed to threaten a bad guy with a gun into staying peaceful? What is more threatening and more readily available than a gun? Nothing.
The bad guy pulls out a gun, the good guy pulls out a gun and from there on it's a game of chicken. If the bad guy is violent/intoxicated enough, he says "Fuck you, jack!" and the fight is on. Somebody ends up hurt, possibly dead.
That's why "An armed society is a polite society" is a lie:
If the bad guy owns a weapon of limited lethality, he is a limited threat and the situation has many solutions. He has a lot of incentive to stay "polite".
If the bad guy owns a weapon of high lethality, he has very little to no incentive to stay "polite", because there is only one possible scenario that might force him to back down: Someone else with a weapon of high lethality.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Nail gun? Drunk Guy would probably not have recognized it. Fight ensues, somebody gets hurt.
Pepper spray? Hardly inspires fear. Would have to be deployed, and it might disable Knife Guy before he hurts somebody. Or might not.
Taser? Chances are getting better, but realize that police use tasers to subdue uncooperative subjects, not to defend themselves against deadly weapons. I wonder why.
A cross-bow? A sword? Are you really suggesting those as carry weapons?
There's no "game of chicken" involved. If someone is threatening you or others with a gun and you have a gun, you shoot, if you can do so without endangering bystanders. This is not what happened. The disparity of force proved successful for the good guys. For some reason you're trying to argue that this situation and others like it should not happen because of some alternate scenario of your imagining.
Which is precisely why "an armed society is a polite society."
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Lack of guns. If guns make a polite society, how does the rest of the developed world stay polite without guns????????
I said that it doesn't matter what kind of weapon produced that imbalance of power.
And the scenario could easily have failed as well: Intoxicated, bad guy flashes knife. Good guy pulls out gun. Bad guy doesn't realize what's happening, attacks. People get hurt.
"If someone is threatening you or others with a gun and you have a gun, you shoot, if you can do so without endangering bystanders."
That would be the ideal scenario, but humans have bad aim, get nervous, hesitate and have scruples to kill other humans.
"An armed society is a polite society" works only as long as the threat is upheld.
=> That means that EVERYBODY must own a gun.
=> That means: "Person A stays polite because Person B has a gun. Person B stays polite because Person A has a gun."
=> That means, Person A lives in a world where everybody around him thinks of him as a threat, as a potential killer. Likewise, Person A thinks of every person around him as a threat, as a potential killer.
Person A meets Person B. Is Person A safe? Person B might just wait for a weakness before killing him.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/open-carry-enthusiast-robbed-at-gunpoint-i-like-your-gun-give-it-to-me/
How are Person A and Person B supposed to trust each other when neither can tell the difference between non-threat and threat?
=>
Do you know why cops pull guns on innocent people and accidently kill innocent people all the time? Because they are trying to keep society POLITE.
EVERY SINGLE TIME a cop (Person A) interacts with a citizen (Person B) he HAS to operate under the assumption that Person B is a threat, because Person B is armed.
THEY ONLY WAY for Person A to feel safe, is to hold Person B at gunpoint.
Now, lets expand this: If Person A feels safe, does Person B feel safe? How does Person B react when Person A pulls a gun on him?
I have another example for "An armed society is a polite society": The Cold War.
If "An armed society is a polite society" were true, then nuclear weapons should be spread as far and wide as possible. No country would dare to mess with any other country. The world would be perfectly peaceful.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)You're laboring under the misapprehension that the developed world is a polite place. Some places are. Some aren't.
You're also laboring under the misapprehension that a person is a "potential killer" just because he/she has a gun and isn't a potential killer just because he/she doesn't have a gun.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)US - 4.7 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens per year
Cuba 4.2
Iran 3.9
Liberia 3.2
Norway 2.2
Sierra Leone 1.9
Greece, Romania 1.7
Canada, Finland, Belgium 1.6
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary 1.3
Serbia, Croatia, Poland, Portugal, Ireland 1.2
Australia, Qatar 1.1
France, UK, Czech, China 1.0
New Zealand, Austria, Netherlands, Italy, South Corea 0.9
Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, Denmark 0.8
Slovenia, San Marino, Sweden 0.7
Switzerland 0.6
Iceland, Japan 0.3
How do these countries get by without guns everywhere?
Let's say, I assume that someone is/isn't a potential killer and that person is unarmed. What are the consequences if I'm wrong?
Let's say, I assume that someone is/isn't a potential killer and that person is armed. What are the consequences if I'm wrong?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)If you take away the "everybody-gets-a-gun"-attitude, how is the US any different from Europe?
You have minorities? Europe has minorities!
You have a wealth-gap? Europe has a wealth-gap!
You have a history of violence? Europe has a history of violence!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Why would you single-out minorities as a source of gun violence?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)probably a couple hundred of them. It isn't hard to buy machine guns out of a car trunk in Europe. It seems that the Brussells train station parking lot is a Ted Nugent Toys R Us. Anywhere in the world, even in Japan, if you can buy a bag of weed or coke, you can buy a gun. That is especially true in Europe.
We have more gangs and gang members, always have is one.
BTW, do you know what the gun ownership rates in those countries are? Not the number of guns per capita, the number of households with at least one privately owned gun? Do you know what the gun laws of each of those countries are? Do you know anything about our federal laws? Give you a hint: When you measure private guns in the household Norway, Finland, Canada, Switzerland (not counting military issue), all top Florida. New Zealand, France, and maybe Iceland is about the same as Florida. Before the red scares in the 1920s-1930s many European countries had no gun control laws at all. Non LE concealed carry was probably common in various European countries, given the number of small semi auto pistols made and sold in Europe by at the time.
Oh, the murder rates were just as low then as now.
BTW, what about countries in our hemisphere that have much stricter gun laws than Europe, and have higher murder rates than ours?
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I don't assume that anybody is a potential killer. Do you? It's not a very productive way to live life.
That said, if the unexpected were to happen, I'd rather be prepared than unprepared. Wouldn't you?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)In a society where lethal weapons are extremely rare, mainly criminals own them. If someone owns a weapon, he is already a suspect, because why would he need a weapon when nobody else owns a weapon?
If you get into a fight with someone, what are the odds that someone will end up dead? Extremely small.
Now, lets look at a society where lethal weapons are extremely common.
You need YOUR gun for peacekeeping in case it turns out that some else is using THEIR gun not for peacekeeping.
If you meet someone with a gun, that gun might mean that you are more safe or it might mean that you are in danger now. You can't tell.
And the other way round: Somebody meets you and you own a gun. Does that person feel safer now or does it feel endangered by you? You might use that gun for evil deeds. The other person can't tell. The other person better also get a gun to be ready to kill you if you make trouble.
If you get into a fight with someone, what are the odds that someone will pull out a gun and someone will end up dead? Large.
Guns increase the magnitude of events. If things go wrong, they go REALLY wrong.
Germany: 30.3 private firearms per 100 people lead to 1.01 gun-deaths (crimes+accidents) per 100,000 people in 2012 (0.01 of those are accidents)
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany
US: 101.05 private firearms per 100 people lead to 10.3 gun-deaths (crimes+accidents) per 100,000 people in 2011 (0.3 of those are accidents)
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
And to come back to my earlier example:
If "an armed society is a polite society", why isn't "an armed bunch of nations is a polite bunch of nations?"
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)First of all, the emphasis on "peacekeeping" is erroneous. Legal guns are for defense, and are not to be deployed until the "peace" is already broken. All this "meet someone with a gun" stuff is moot. You won't know until someone attempts to do someone harm, at which point you are much better off having one than not.
Which is why it is not a good idea to go around getting into fights with people. "An armed society is a ... etc."
Despite the "MADness" of life under the conditions of Mutually Assured Destruction, the fact is that the Cold War remained cold because of the presence of nuclear weapons. Would that nations could find a better way of dealing with each other, but things being as they are, a nation with abundant resources and no effective means of self-defense is a nation that will ultimately be victimized.
Underlying your stats is a tacit assumption that the only causal factor in gun death rates is the number of guns is private hands. Do we really need to discuss the correlation/causation dichotomy? If you want to go that route, we'll need to examine overall violent death rates, suicide rates, number of guns that are legally vs. illegally owned, etc. before we can even begin to draw conclusions.
This "polite society" thing is oversold anyway, since most people don't walk around with the awareness that other people they encounter may be armed. All your examples are doing, though, is proving the point you wish to disprove.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)My point is: "An armed society is a polite society" is an unrealistic idealization.
- Accidents happen. And the presence of lethal devices makes the consequences of those worse.
- People get into arguments. And the presence of lethal devices makes the consequences of those worse.
- "An armed society is a polite society" is not build on trust. It's build on distrust: The only thing that keeps you polite is my gun. Distrust and weapons creates tension. Tension leads to mistakes and accidents.
One could argue whether the number "impolite" situations is higher or lower in an armed society. My point is:
In an unarmed society, once things get out of control, people get hurt.
In an armed society, once things get out of control, people die.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I agree that it is unrealistic, simply for the fact I mentioned before: that people don't walk around with the awareness of who may or may not be armed. However ...
... sometimes the presence of lethal devices makes the consequences better. If one party to an argument becomes violent and attacks the other with lethal force, I would say that victim of the attack should be able to respond with the most effective means possible, and if it results in the wounding or death of the attacker, so be it. I would call that a positive outcome.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Just one link.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)"Perceived a threat" is a red herring. The standard in most cases is whether a person would reasonably believe his/her life was in danger.
No points for the "toothless hillbillies" depiction: crude class prejudice, pure and simple.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Shouldn't they all be yelling "yeehaw"? I mean, as long as we're telling stories...
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Okay, so you've got that part figured out. The problem is that the gun-ban philosophy (more of religion to some, actually), shifts the balance of power to criminals who don't care about gun laws to begin with. Chicago and D.C. are perfect examples of criminals walking around armed while decent, law-abiding people are expected to defend themselves with your hypothetical nail gun, pepper spray, taser (also banned in some places), crossbow (also banned in some places), or sword (also banned in some places).
kcci
(35 posts)nothing about the armed and aggressive criminal.
Frankly, that is a very odd take on the situation.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)We should disarm armed and aggressive criminals instead of innocent heroes. Fantastic idea.
Now, all we need is a list that splits people into two groups:
"Will threaten people with weapon one day"
"Won't threaten people with weapon one day"
Why has nobody thought of this before?
kcci
(35 posts)But good job justifying;
Japanese internment.
Making Islam illegal.
Preventative incarceration.
There are literally no rights if your argument was applied.
"Now, all we need is a list that splits people into two groups:
"Will threaten people with weapon one day"
"Won't threaten people with weapon one day" "
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)How would it have been possible to disarm the guy with the knife before it turns out that he's a guy with a knife?
Your demand to disarm bad guys only works if you can tell BEFOREHAND who's the bad guy and who's not.
kcci
(35 posts)Then why do you want to disarm good guys?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Now, all we need is a list that splits people into good guys and bad guys. Oops...
Two guys with guns. One is good, one is bad, but you don't know who's who. Do you want them in your diner?
Two guys. One has a gun. One is good, one is bad, but you don't know who's who. Do you want them in your diner?
Two guys. No guns. One is good, one is bad, but you don't know who's who. Do you want them in your diner?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)See Mexico and the car trunk arms bazaar in the Brussels train station.
Most murders and assaults in the US are bad guys killing, or trying to, each other.
http://www.ibtimes.com/belgian-arms-dealer-supplied-paris-gunmen-weapons-assault-rifles-used-charlie-hebdo-1783432
In Australia, they would have just made their own.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/
kcci
(35 posts)But nevermind that for now; Are you honestly suggesting that prohibitions work?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Europe has way less gun-related murders and way less gun-related accidents. (I posted the links in another response in this thread...)
Do you see another explanation than stricter gun-laws?
kcci
(35 posts)Mexico & Russia have stringent gun control & higher murder rates, as does 100 other nations.
In the US, California is ranked 1st in gun control according to the Brady Group, yet is 27th in murder rate.
Iowa has the lowest murder rate with a relatively high guns per capita rate.
Wyoming has the highest guns per capita & one of the lowest murder rates in the nation.
Your explanation lacks so much as consistent examples.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)If the knife-wielding diner had stabbed someone to death, the extreme gun control crowd might have taken a moment to tsk-tsk. If the gun-wielding diner had shot the attacker to save someone else, that same crowd would be calling for him to go to prison and asking stupid questions like "why didn't he just shoot him in the leg or shoot the knife out of his hand?"
ileus
(15,396 posts)to finish the fight.
Remember.....fight the way you train.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)The Mythbusters version gives more advantage to the knife-wielder because the gun guy is carrying not merely uncocked, but without a round chambered -- not a recommended carry method. In the OP's situation, you can also factor in knife-guy's extreme intoxication and the fact that the gun guy was not his sole focus.
DonP
(6,185 posts)I'm sure there's a name for this disorder; like "Can't-accept-reality-when-guns-are-involveditis"?
The control fans come out of the wood work and go ape shit when this happens.
Then they insist on posting 14 different scenarios of what might have happened, based on nothing but their vivid and twisted imagination.
Can't deal with what actually happened ... and we're all still waiting for them to post any of this ever actually happening, as opposed to their gloating over any accidental gun death, as if were some kind of justifiable capital punishment for even owning a gun.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)As I've posted several times, if I or someone in my family was killed by a knife-wielding intruder, the anti-gunners might take time to tsk-tsk, but if I were to use a firearm to stop that same intruder, they would all wonder aloud if it was really necessary and whether I should be prosecuted. It's disgusting how they use crime victims as props to try and justify their fantasies and propaganda.
I have actually seen a post on this board (back during the Zimmerman trial) that said owning a gun makes you a bad person. Not using a gun, not committing a crime, not hunting, just owning a gun supposedly makes one a bad person. That's the mentality of the radical anti-gun crowd. Yes, there are plenty of gun nuts around, but there are at least as many anti-gun nuts.