• bjornsno@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The sign actually would give me an increased sense of security yeah.

      Obviously a lunatic out to do a mass shooting would disregard the sign but your average gun wielder might be offended and take their business elsewhere – and statistically that’s the one who’s more likely to shoot me. That’s my logic as a Norwegian who’s lived there for just a year anyway.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Statistically speaking, people that have conceal carry licenses are less likely to engage in criminal activity than the average person, and less likely to shoot a person in general. The people to worry about are the people that carry firearms without having a valid carry license. (This doesn’t apply in the relatively few states that don’t require permits to carry concealed firearms.) Essentially, people that obey one law–getting a permit before they carry a firearm–tend to be likely to obey most laws.

        • bjornsno@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Fair enough, though a person with a gun is much more likely to shoot me than a person without a gun. Any measure to reduce the amount of people in my vicinity carrying guns has my full support. If 1/1000 (number pulled out of my ass obviously) gun owners end up shooing someone, and you reduce the amount of people around me carrying guns from 1000 to 10, you’ve just dramatically increased my statistical probability of living a full life.

          I actually looked and couldn’t find the murder rate in the population of gun owners with basic googling but the actual number doesn’t matter when it’s being compared to 0.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            According to a quick Google search, 3 in 10 American adults say that they currently own a firearm; that’s around 82,000,000 gun owners in the US. Last time I checked, there were around 45,000 annual gun deaths in the US, of which just under 2/3 were suicide. That leaves somewhere around 18,000 deaths that are homicides of some form (which also includes legal self-defense). So it’s far, far less than 1/1000 gun owners that are going to shoot someone (other than intentionally shooting themselves, and IMO that’s a different issue entirely).

            But, sure, if in your opinion that only correct number of gun deaths is 0, then yes, removing guns and collectively forgetting how to make them is the only solution. Just like if your opinion is that the only correct number of traffic deaths is zero, then the only reasonable solution is the completely elimination of all means of transportation other than feet.

            • bjornsno@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              You’ve done your division twice there, it seems. The ~45000 is the number after you take away the suicides.. So pretty much 1/2000, so I guess I was pretty close.

              Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that? As for your comparison to vehicular deaths, let’s remember the context here. The question is whether or not I feel safer in a place that doesn’t allow guns or one that does. So you should really be asking if I think it’s better to walk on the sidewalk or in the road shared with cars. Of course I might still get hit by a car on the sidewalk, but where would you feel safer?

              • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that?

                I absolutely do disagree, yes. If my life or safety is being threatened by someone, then I absolutely have the right to use any level of force necessary to defend myself, up to and including lethal force.

                BTW, the way that you state that question is a form of manipulation. It’s a common tactic used in high-pressure sales.

                • bjornsno@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Ok, I don’t agree, it should be up to and including the amount of force necessary to incapacitate whoever is threatening your life. Stun gun and handcuffs yes, handgun no.

                  Btw the way you drew a false comparison between my argument and road safety is called false equivalence and is an informal fallacy, while we’re discussing each other’s debating techniques rather than addressing the points made.

                  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    First: Stun guns are ineffective. I’ve used one on myself; it tickles. The basic principle of a stun gun is pain compliance, and if the person you’re using it on has a high pain threshold, they’re utterly ineffective A taser has, at best, two shots. Thick clothing, bad contact, or simply missing means you’re SOL. It’s pretty easy to find video of cops trying to taze someone, and failing. Pepper spray works–depending on the brand–but it very dependent on things like wind speed and direction, and how old your canister is. …And you’re pretty likely to end up pepper spraying yourself if you don’t practice with inert canisters.

                    Guns just work. Period.

                    And no, it’s not a false equivalence. Cars have utility value, as do firearms. Cars can be used legally, and they can be used illegally, as can firearms. There are millions of cars that are used legally and safely every day, much like firearms. It’s not a precise parallel, but it’s sufficiently close for the purposes of this argument.

    • BreadOven@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Hmmm. Not overly, I assume it’s just a “suggestion” but am not sure. But I have had to travel there quite a bit for work, and I usually feel mostly secure. But I am aware a lot of people carry them in the US, and mostly just keep to myself moreso than I normally would outside of work things.