GUN CONTROL

[TimeSeeker]

Kloos earned an ad hominem by being cited as a reference.

I cited him because I felt no need to repeat his argument.

I share his thoughts.

[TimeSeeker]

Would “from guns” serve better than the cherrypicked term, “gunfire “?

You are ascribing causal properties to inanimate objects. That is my objection - not your use of language.

[Walker]

Tests the capacity for instantaneous, accurate apprehension of a threat.

[TimeSeeker]

Tests the capacity for instantaneous, accurate apprehension of a threat.

With the knowledge that "precision" is always a tradeoff between false positive and true negative ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_ ... ive_values )

Where and how would you set the bar for "accuracy"?

How skilled should a citizen be before they are allowed to defend their life? Obviously - a rhetorical question.

A free person doesn't need permission to do that.

[Walker]

Tests the capacity for instantaneous, accurate apprehension of a threat.

With the knowledge that "precision" is always a tradeoff between false positive and true negative ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_ ... ive_values )

Where and how would you set the bar for "accuracy" ?

How good should you be before you are allowed to defend your life?

You must learn to use the force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fufJbtS5yGs



The point of the Dirty Harry Test is not being a good shot.

The point is assessing reality.

Notice how Harry gives that last shot in the clip a good look afterwards? He is triangulating, so he can later find the slug. Details. Clint probably learned that playing golf, before he could afford to pay a caddy to watch the ball for him every time he hit it in the woods.

What I say is, if you kill someone in self-defense then you're a murderer in the eyes of the law, at least until you can prove differently. That isn't what the law says, but that's the proper view to match the seriousness of your newfound situation, so ladies learn to keep your wits and practice assessing threat levels without the need for atomic realm confirmation.

[TimeSeeker]

The point of the Dirty Harry Test is not being a good shot.

The point is assessing reality.

You misunderstood me.

Determining whether something is a threat or not is not about "shot accuracy".

It is about assertive accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic

All binary classifiers (such as a mental process which determines between threat/no-threat) are subject to Type I and Type II errors.

ALL! That is to say - no perfect classifier exists. So what margin of error is acceptable assertive accuracy before one is allowed to defend their life?

[Walker]

ALL! That is to say - no perfect classifier exists. So what margin of error is acceptable assertive accuracy before one is allowed to defend their life?

Slow down there.

That last sentence is not acceptable.

Rephrasing is required to advance.

[TimeSeeker]

ALL! That is to say - no perfect classifier exists. So what margin of error is acceptable assertive accuracy before one is allowed to defend their life?

Slow down there.

That last sentence is not acceptable.

Rephrasing is required to advance.

What do I need to rephrase? How statistics work?

Every time you make somebody pass such a test - they are subject to error. Keep making them take the test with a time limit/under duress and they WILL eventually screw up. Every. Single. Human. Being.

They will either identify a non-threat as a threat (Type I error) and kill an innocent.
OR
They will fail to identify a real threat (Type II error) and be killed.

So if we are to make people pass a test for "instantaneous, accurate apprehension of a threat." what error margin would result in failure? 10%? 1%? 0.1% ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_ ... ive_values

[Walker]

Well, if that's where you want to go ...

How skilled should a citizen be before they are allowed to defend their life? Obviously - a rhetorical question.

A free person doesn't need permission to do that.

Followed by …

So what margin of error is acceptable assertive accuracy before one is allowed to defend their life?

You corrected yourself when first you wrote allowed.
So, correct yourself before you write it at me.

Clean it up.



Maybe what you're looking for is in all that other stuff I wrote that you glossed over.

Don't be an empty, bottomless hole.

[A_Seagull]

It would seem that people who live in a gun toting society, such as the USA, and support that way of life because it gives them the means to defend themselves live in fear and most likely don't even realise it.

[henry quirk]

No doubt some folks do, and that's why they own a gun.

Others simply don't cotton to the notion they have to rely on someone else to watch their back. Such folks prefer to take care of themselves. You can call these folks 'prudent'.

'Well, if no one had guns then why would they need to watch their own backs?'

Cuz the criminal rapes, steals, kills with or without a gun.

As I wrote about before, in-forum: some time back, young men broke into my home while I was there. If I hadn't had my coach gun to discourage 'em, I'm thinkin' I wouldn't have fared as well as I did.

Yeah, I'm not givin' up my gun, and I won't be hobbled in my use of my gun.

[Walker]

… most likely don't even realise it.

How patronizing. Those who put their fate in the hands of mitten force are the naïve.

It’s more like this. I know someone stopped at some tiny Nevada town just to spend the night, and promptly won big on a slot machine. So what did he do? He went to his hotel room, checked out, and drove hours down the road to sleep somewhere far away. Prudence, caution, foresight are not fear.

[commonsense]

Perhaps the prudent ones are right. Gun ownership is guaranteed by our 2nd Amendment.

Prior to our Constitution, there was the Declaration of Independence and the pursuit of happiness. Concert-goers, movie-goers and night club customers should not have their pursuit curtailed.

On balance, a society’s ethical value derives from how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. It seems only right that children and worshippers ought to be protected before the prudent ones.

We could give more guns to the good guys and position armed guards at every place of gathering. If so, we would, in effect, be surrendering our freedom to having a police state.

Or we could melt our guns into plowshares, so to speak. This may be ethically valid, but implementation appears to be intangible.

The prudent ones treasure guns for self-protection. The others take an altruistic approach but this approach may lead to martyrdom rather than protection of others.

A society’s ethical value is also judged by who it’s hero are. Heroes are not the ones who protect themselves. They are ordinary people who protect the weakest and most vulnerable from danger, even at the risk of personal injury.

[TimeSeeker]

A society’s ethical value is also judged by who it’s hero are. Heroes are not the ones who protect themselves. They are ordinary people who protect the weakest and most vulnerable from danger, even at the risk of personal injury.

It is just a damn shame that when seconds count, the protectors are only minutes away.

Systems/risk engineering 101 - the operators at the sharp end of the system gets to resolve any and all moral ambiguity.

And so nothing stops you from exercising your 2A rights to protect others. And you don’t need a uniform. Citizen arrest powers exist in just about every legal system.

[henry quirk]

"(Heroes) are ordinary people who protect the weakest and most vulnerable from danger, even at the risk of personal injury."

Absolutely. Thank Crom, in the U.S., they can have guns to help 'em do it.