Dildos descend on UT Austin in 'Cocks Not Glocks' protest of guns on campus - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945503]When has this [I]ever[/I] happened?[/QUOTE] Obviously not that specific situation. But as sourced, CCW overall increases violent crime. I could [b]guess[/b] as to why, but honestly I don't particularly know. I just know that the stats are fairly clear - CCW leads to more violent crime.

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945512]Obviously not that specific situation. But as sourced, CCW overall increases violent crime. I could [b]guess[/b] as to why, but honestly I don't particularly know. I just know that the stats are fairly clear - CCW leads to more violent crime.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/WMNPURo.gif[/img] Could it be that people are deciding to carry more in response to higher local crime rates (or more probably, a heavier focus on violent crime in the media, since violent crime is on a downward trend) rather than people deciding to cause more violent crime (even though the overall crime rate is decreasing while the number of CHL holders in the country goes up)? Note, I'm not saying that more guns = less crime. That's a stupid argument too. But the numbers currently don't support the argument that less guns strictly means less crime, either. It's more that there isn't a direct link between these two figures.

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945479][url]http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294.pdf[/url] [url]http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26oq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26sugexp%3Dchrome%2Cmod%3D4%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8#search=%22%E2%80%9CShooting%20Down%20More%20Guns%2C%20Less%20Crime%20Hypothesis%2C%E2%80%9D%20by%20Ian%20Ayres%20John%20J.%20Donohue%20III.%20Stanford%20Law%20Review%2C%20V%22[/url] Long sources, so.... .[/QUOTE] Yeah, I had a feeling those would be the ones. First off, both of those studies basically admit that the evidence is weak and the impact minor at best, the second one is a lot more confident about declaring their conclusion while the first is more reserved. Second off, yeah, this doesn't surprise me one bit. Of course concealed carry isn't going to result in a reduced crime rate, it just shifts the actual outcome. If someone mugs me at knifepoint, that's considered an assault under those stats. If I have a concealed weapon and shoot to stop and he dies, that's a murder under those stats. A crime is already being committed (I'm being mugged), the question of whether I have a concealed weapon only changes whether I'm at risk of becoming a murder stat or he is. Of course the presence of a defensive firearm makes the encounter more likely to end in violence- but lethal force is already in use as soon as the attacker makes a threat with a weapon, and that gives the victim the right to defend themselves. At best, the studies indicate that concealed carry isn't a significant deterrent to crime. Fine, I can accept that- I've never been a fan of the 'give everyone a gun and problem solved' argument. But I'm not going to accept that concealed carry is pointless because my death is the same as my mugger's death on paper, and I'm certainly not going to accept that 'low chance I will be killed' is better than 'high chance mugger will be killed'.

[QUOTE=Skanic;50944994]Find it funny that people say how save Sweden when its the capital of rape in Europe.[/QUOTE] Thats actually due to a different definition of rape rather than more rape than other countries.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50945533]Yeah, I had a feeling those would be the ones. First off, both of those studies basically admit that the evidence is weak and the impact minor at best, the second one is a lot more confident about declaring their conclusion while the first is more reserved. [/quote] [quote] here remains no robust, credible statistical evidence that the adoption of shall-issue laws will generally lower crime, and indeed the best, albeit admittedly imperfect, statistical evidence presented thus far points in the opposite direction: that the adoption of shall-issue laws will generally increase crime[/quote] So yeah - at best useless, at worst downright harmful. [quote] At best, the studies indicate that concealed carry isn't a significant deterrent to crime. Fine, I can accept that- I've never been a fan of the 'give everyone a gun and problem solved' argument. But I'm not going to accept that concealed carry is pointless because my death is the same as my mugger's death on paper, and I'm certainly not going to accept that 'low chance I will be killed' is better than 'high chance mugger will be killed'.[/QUOTE] Just give him your wallet and nobody dies...

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945512]Obviously not that specific situation. But as sourced, CCW overall increases violent crime. I could [b]guess[/b] as to why, but honestly I don't particularly know. I just know that the stats are fairly clear - CCW leads to more violent crime.[/QUOTE]Except there's nothing that says, conclusively, that CCWs increases violent crime and [I]that doesn't even make sense anyway.[/I] So criminals are committing more crimes because more people have guns? Ridiculous, all it shows is that at best people are responding to a preexisting condition, crime, and then they start counting from there. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SataniX;50945556]So yeah - at best useless, at worst downright harmful. Just give him your wallet and nobody dies...[/QUOTE]So wait if the presence of CCWs in the area increases violent crime then it's safe to assume the risk of a mugger being violent is increased so it's actually more likely you will die. Quite honestly using the argument you've presented means that in that situation it's best to rightfully blow the cocksucker away because he's [I]probably[/I] going to kill you anyway.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945562]Except there's nothing that says, conclusively, that CCWs increases violent crime and [I]that doesn't even make sense anyway.[/I] So criminals are committing more crimes because more people have guns? Ridiculous, all it shows is that at best people are responding to a preexisting condition, crime, and then they start counting from there.[/QUOTE] CCW is always going to be an escalation. Catbarf's example, even - escalating from a knife to a gun. And yes, obviously no-one wants to be mugged or being held at knife point. But you're risking much more by escalating than by not, both in terms of your own safety and surrounding people. Pull a gun on someone, regardless of whether it's justified, and they're going to panic, and make bad decisions.

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945556]So yeah - at best useless, at worst downright harmful. Just give him your wallet and nobody dies...[/QUOTE] There is no garuntee that once you give him the goods he won't just shank you anyways. It's happened before, and there is no way to tell before hand if they intend to release you with no harm.

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945556]So yeah - at best useless, at worst downright harmful.[/QUOTE] A conclusion that the authors admit is weak and could end up being wrong, which happens all the time in academia. You understand how this works, right? [QUOTE=SataniX;50945556]Just give him your wallet and nobody dies...[/QUOTE] Unless he means to kill you because you're white. Or he's initiating for a gang. Or he doesn't want witnesses. Or you looked at him funny. Or he's out of his mind on meth. If you want to trust a mugger, that's your call, but you have no right to impose that decision on others.

[QUOTE=DuCT;50945580]There is no garuntee that once you give him the goods he won't just shank you anyways. It's happened before, and there is no way to tell before hand if they intend to release you with no harm.[/QUOTE] Yeah of course it's happened, but let's use our common sense here. 99% of muggers are after your wallet and maybe your watch, not out to murder someone.

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945577]Pull a gun on someone, regardless of whether it's justified, and they're going to panic, and make bad decisions.[/QUOTE] Considering the number of defensive gun uses by people who survived the encounter (88k-3mil depending on source) outnumbers the number of justifiable homicides (277) in 2014 by a factor of somewhere between 318:1 and 10,830:1, the stats suggest that the most likely outcome of such a scenario does not involve the death of either party. Typically if you pull a gun on someone who has a knife on you, they run. Go to Reddit's r/DGU subreddit and have a read through some of the examples. You just said yourself, they're after your wallet and maybe your watch- they're not interested in a fight they'll likely be on the losing end of.

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945577]CCW is always going to be an escalation. Catbarf's example, even - escalating from a knife to a gun. And yes, obviously no-one wants to be mugged or being held at knife point. But you're risking much more by escalating than by not, both in terms of your own safety and surrounding people. Pull a gun on someone, regardless of whether it's justified, and they're going to panic, and make bad decisions.[/QUOTE][url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/02/georgia-town-not-alone-in-using-gun-law-as-deterrent/2048059/]Except the Kennesaws of the nation prove otherwise,[/url] gun ownership becomes mandatory or is otherwise increased among the population and crime abruptly drops. Escalation of force doesn't mean application of force, I don't think we will [U]ever[/U] have a reliable statistic that outlines even most of the instances where a firearm was used to "scare off" a would-be attacker. I'd rather risk that escalation than be at the whims of somebody who is already morally corrupt to the point that they're using force against me. Without a firearm I am at his mercy, with one I'm equally capable of using force and he's faced with a decision to press the issue or run away. That's the equation we're discussing here, I don't see why willfully removing the ability to project force is even remotely a good idea.

There's also the fact that, you know, not every criminal is a mugger, and not every mugger is content to let you walk away unharmed if you comply. But what about rapists? "Just give your body to him"? People who are actually just wantonly brutalizing other people for no reason? "Just submit and take your licks"? Murderers? "Give him your life! He's troubled, he doesn't deserve to die!" No, fuck that. I'm not putting my life in the hands of someone who's using me as a pinata. I will draw my weapon and if I have to I will shoot them. If they didn't want to get shot, maybe they should have, I dunno, followed the fucking law and not mistreated other people.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945653]No, fuck that. I'm not putting my life in the hands of someone who's using me as a pinata. I will draw my weapon and if I have to I will shoot them. If they didn't want to get shot, maybe they should have, I dunno, followed the fucking law and not mistreated other people.[/QUOTE]Honestly the only thing you really can do is magdump while screaming, "hands are for helping, [U]not[/U] hurting!" [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] It's the only way to be sure.

Like, yeah, truly - killing an assailant isn't some "cool" thing. I don't want to ever have somebody's blood on my hands. But I'd rather shoot a criminal who's actively committing a crime against me than, you know, die because I made the mistake of trusting Jeffrey Dahmer v2 not to take advantage of my disadvantage. If a person doesn't want to put themselves at risk of being shot and killed for committing a violent crime, it's very easy to avoid: don't commit a violent crime. If you are committing violent crimes, particularly in an area where you must know people can be armed, I have to assume for my own safety that you are either content with death or planning to kill me before I can kill you.

Plus there's always less-lethal options, but I think blasting somebody with one of those .45 Long Colt derringers with a .410 shotgun shell loaded with rock salt might get you in trouble in certain jurisdictions. Pretty sure a faceful of a hot, salty load is going to make a lasting impression though.

Yeah, a lot of the non-lethal self defense loads will actually get you sued for causing undue suffering or something. Rock salt is the most reliable non-lethal that can be fired out of an unconverted weapon but it will definitely get you in hot water in most jurisdictions. You really can't win.

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945556]So yeah - at best useless, at worst downright harmful. Just give him your wallet and nobody dies...[/QUOTE] you're telling me if someone chooses to cause me harm i just need to accept the damage because resisting could cause the guy undue harm? no thanks, im protecting my belongings, i dont give a fuck if the guy robbing me bites it because he thought his life was worth risking over my wallet too

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945556]So yeah - at best useless, at worst downright harmful. Just give him your wallet and nobody dies...[/QUOTE] This is a very European mindset. In the US, we dont just roll over for someone who wants to take from us. We fight back; why should i give something i worked hard for to a thief? If a person threatens me with violence for my wallet, I see no issue with them facing violence. Furthermore, when a person approaches you on the street with a knife, you would hope he just wants your watch or wallet but thats not always the case. Its not about potential intent, its about potential capability. If you dont plan for the worst, youre powerless to it.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50946189]This is a very European mindset. In the US, we dont just roll over for someone who wants to take from us. We fight back; why should i give something i worked hard for to a thief? If a person threatens me with violence for my wallet, I see no issue with them facing violence. Furthermore, when a person approaches you on the street with a knife, you would hope he just wants your watch or wallet but thats not always the case. Its not about potential intent, its about potential capability. If you dont plan for the worst, youre powerless to it.[/QUOTE] It's not just a European mindset -it's most likely one that'll become common in America given enough time. Much of the USA was created in the past two centuries, and there were large areas of land unsettled even a century ago. Given enough time the American peoples will continue settling down, abandoning this "frontier" mentality, and creating a less-wild form of society. It's already under process in America, but It'll take a few centuries for Americans to have built up the kind of society common over in Europe. Until then you are going to get a lot of people holding onto the romantic ideal of guns preserving American society from tyranny and protecting you from criminals rather than the unwelcome reality that a lot of businesses and politicians have made careers out of exploiting the fear of gun owners and turning them into an effective political machine so that they could lobby for favourable gun legislation that benefits few. It's resulted in the creation of a lot of angry militia and sovereign citizen types who hoard guns when a black man is elected president.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50946189]This is a very European mindset. In the US, we dont just roll over for someone who wants to take from us. We fight back; why should i give something i worked hard for to a thief? If a person threatens me with violence for my wallet, I see no issue with them facing violence.[/QUOTE] Please don't lump us with the English, thank you.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;50945853]you're telling me if someone chooses to cause me harm i just need to accept the damage because resisting could cause the guy undue harm? no thanks, im protecting my belongings, i dont give a fuck if the guy robbing me bites it because he thought his life was worth risking over my wallet too[/QUOTE] It's not about the robber. Just google the 21 foot rule. Someone holding a knife can stab you before you've unholstered your gun. It's not worth risking your life over. If he's got a gun, don't even bother reaching for it. Even if he wasn't planning on using it, once he sees his life being threatened, he won't hesitate. That's why I don't think CCW helps that much. It might help when groups are being threatened or attacked, but individually? No thanks, I'd rather just give him my wallet. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] If you want to be safe from robbers, learn a proper martial art.

[QUOTE=joost1120;50946519]It's not about the robber. Just google the 21 foot rule. Someone holding a knife can stab you before you've unholstered your gun. It's not worth risking your life over. If he's got a gun, don't even bother reaching for it. Even if he wasn't planning on using it, once he sees his life being threatened, he won't hesitate. That's why I don't think CCW helps that much. It might help when groups are being threatened or attacked, but individually? No thanks, I'd rather just give him my wallet. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] If you want to be safe from robbers, learn a proper martial art.[/QUOTE] ccws are concealed for a reason and the fact that you're recommending self defense using your bare hands over using a gun made me laugh

[QUOTE=joost1120;50946519]It's not about the robber. Just google the 21 foot rule. Someone holding a knife can stab you before you've unholstered your gun. It's not worth risking your life over. If he's got a gun, don't even bother reaching for it. Even if he wasn't planning on using it, once he sees his life being threatened, he won't hesitate. That's why I don't think CCW helps that much. It might help when groups are being threatened or attacked, but individually? No thanks, I'd rather just give him my wallet. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] If you want to be safe from robbers, learn a proper martial art.[/QUOTE] its about reading the situation. if i think i have no chance then i will comply. if i see a chance and, through mentally calculating the risk, decide i want to take it, i very well may. if i lose and die, then that is on me. if i succeed, then the chance was worth it. i would rather have that chance and ability to defend myself on a more equal level than be left with no recourse at all. you're right that learning a martial art would be a big boon in that situation, but knowing a martial art and having a firearm to boot could be an even bigger boon.

[QUOTE=Perrine;50946604]ccws are concealed for a reason and the fact that you're recommending self defense using your bare hands over using a gun made me laugh[/QUOTE] you're gonna get stabbed either way

[QUOTE=mchapra;50946639]you're gonna get stabbed either way[/QUOTE] I mean if i'm being stabbed either way having a gun wouldn't hurt

[QUOTE=RB33;50941576] I prefer my gunless society, truly makes me feel safer.[/QUOTE] Isnt that an argument a lot of pro-gun people have is that it makes you FEEL safer but doesnt necessarily MAKE you safer? :v:

[QUOTE=Perrine;50946604]ccws are concealed for a reason and the fact that you're recommending self defense using your bare hands over using a gun made me laugh[/QUOTE] I can guarantee you a Krav Maga specialist will break your neck before you can reach your gun.

[QUOTE=joost1120;50947397]I can guarantee you a Krav Maga specialist will break your neck before you can reach your gun.[/QUOTE] How often are people robbed by Krav Maga specialists? What the fuck kind of bullshit fantasy scenario is this? Are Israeli commandos getting desperate for funding or something? If bare hands are so dangerous, why aren't we regulating those instead of guns? Honestly it really worries me that anyone can go out and become a high capacity assault specialist without a license.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50946871]Isnt that an argument a lot of pro-gun people have is that it makes you FEEL safer but doesnt necessarily MAKE you safer? :v:[/QUOTE] If everyone isn't carrying a gun, everyone is safer. No one is able to shoot you then. Except criminals of course but they won't shoot random innocent people without a reason.