The Right Way to Club Bears

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Stargate38

IMO, the only guns that could kill people are autonomous robotic weapons with AI (i.e. real-world equivalents of droid weapons). All other guns need a person to pull the trigger.

Well that opinion is objectively wrong. Else why would spring guns be widely illegal? There is no AI there. There is no person pulling the trigger.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Well that opinion is objectively wrong. Else why would spring guns be widely illegal? There is no AI there. There is no person pulling the trigger.

I could argue that the person setting off the trap (indirectly) pulled the trigger.

That is not to say that I approve of their use nor think that they should not be illegal.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by retina

If no one has guns then you don't need more guns to "defend" against non-existent guns. They are totally removed from consideration.

Even in prisons, inmates make or get smuggled in, shivs, zip guns, etc., sometimes bribing guards or by other means. In largely-gun-prohibited nations, police and military arms are stolen or diverted or sold to violent criminals. Significant portions of some no-gun-rights-for-civilians nations are more under control of organized crime than the nominal government.
No guns, if such a thing could be accomplished, and maintained, at great cost to finances and freedoms, does not mean no crime. It does not mean no violence. Approximating it typically begins with those least likely to commit crime themselves, and puts the old, small, disabled, etc at a distinct disadvantage relative to those with larger size, greater strength, martial arts skill, or larger numbers, making the disarmed populace easier targets and more likely to be harmed. Criminals love gun "control" (restriction, prohibition). It makes a life of crime safer for the criminals and more dangerous for their likely targets.

People are safe from the firearms of decent responsible people, as long as they do not do carjackings, perform muggings, commit home invasions, armed robberies, etc., that is, as long as they do not create by their actions, a reasonable expectation of imminent death or great bodily harm for their intended victims, in the absence of effective action to stop the threat, by the intended victims or a bystander.
If gun prohibition worked, there would be no mass shootings in nominally gun-free zones. Mass shooters take advantage of gun-free zones because they understand it is safer for the shooter if their intended target population is helpless because they've been disarmed.

This is a topic where most people have firmly held views that are unlikely to be changed by a little conversation.
It is common for people with a lifetime of experience around guns to view them as simply machines, tools, with certain legitimate uses and ways they can be misused.
It is common for people with little or no experience of guns to view them as too dangerous for anyone to possess.
Some with no prior experience revise their views after some experience.
Note also that the history of firearms is often misrepresented. There were handheld repeating long arms, available from several makers, capable of firing up to 30 rounds between reloads, beginning ~360. years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
Representation of the state of the art of 250 years ago as single shot smooth bore muskets is simply false. Such weapons were popular because they were cheap, simple, and easy to understand and maintain with limited resources, and were sometimes made by their owners themselves or the local blacksmith.

Representation of weapons as intended only to cause biological or psychological harm to persons is also false.
Firearms have many uses, ranging from resistance to or deterrence of attempted violent crimes, to dispatching a cow so the butcher that makes "house calls" to farms can get on with his work, to protecting livestock and family from wild animals, to controlling destructive pests such as woodchucks that undermine the foundations of buildings, to competing in biathlon events, etc. One acquaintance described his pursuit of perfection in target shooting and reloading as resembling meditation, very relaxing for him, helpful with the stresses of work and a growing family.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by xilman

I could argue that the person setting off the trap (indirectly) pulled the trigger.

And the extension of that argument is that any AI driven system had a human trigger. Either the person triggering a condition or the one writing the code. Thus Stargate's example of an AI fails in the other direction.

Originally Posted by Stargate38

Besides, there's always killing in self-defense,

Some areas have laws that have a "duty to retreat" clause. So, killing in self-defense is not always considered reasonable.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

And the extension of that argument is that any AI driven system had a human trigger. Either the person triggering a condition or the one writing the code. Thus Stargate's example of an AI fails in the other direction.
Some areas have laws that have a "duty to retreat" clause. So, killing in self-defense is not always considered reasonable.

And if an AI wrote that code?

Regress arbitrarily deeply.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by xilman

Guns don't kill people.

Guns make it easy for people to kill people.

This is IMO a most pertinent observation. It is particularly so WRT suicides, in which one might say the bad guy with the gun and the good guy with the gun are one. Roughly half the suicides in the US die by gunfire.

The following is from the Gun Violence Archive PAST SUMMARY LEDGERS. The numbers in the second and third lines add up to the total in the first line. However, the last two lines are numbers of incidents rather than body counts.

Total Number of GV Deaths - ALL Causes - Actual total of all non-suicide deaths plus daily calculated suicide deaths 44,873

Suicide - Calculation based on CDC Suicide Data 24,090
Homicide/Murder/Unintentional/DGU - Number of source verified deaths and injuries 20,783

Unintentional Shooting - Number of INCIDENTS reported and verified 2,004
Defensive Use - Number of INCIDENTS reported and verified 1,246

Some caveats: "number of incidents" does not signify "number killed." Also, some of those killed in a "defensive use" incident might be the aggressors, whose deaths would be "justifiable homicide," and some might be the victims, whose killings would be unlawful. Further, although the number of unintentional shooting incidents is substantially higher than the number of defensive use incidents, the number of people killed in unintentional shootings could well be much lower.

Even so, it is clear that far, far more people in the US die by the gun from suicide or unlawful homicide, than are killed by people acting in self defense.

BTW, from a legal standpoint, "spring guns" are merely one among many types of lethal devices whose setting is unlawful. If someone is killed by such a device, the person who set it would likely be up on manslaughter charges.

Whether the device killed or only injured someone, the person setting the device could also be civilly liable.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

This is IMO a most pertinent observation. It is particularly so WRT suicides, in which one might say the bad guy with the gun and the good guy with the gun are one. Roughly half the suicides in the US die by gunfire.

Someone (A) that I know was irate/depressed enough that others (B & C) were concerned about their well being. I went with B & C to A's abode at their request while A was out. B & C asked me to safe A's pistol (removing the clip and clearing the chamber.) B (who was in a romantic relationship with A) then removed the ammo for the abode. Figuring that no ammunition could be obtained from 10pm to 7am bought time for B to talk to A, when A returned from being away. Having a loaded firearm there would have made it too easy for A to act out on their emotions.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

B & C asked me to safe A's pistol (removing the clip and clearing the chamber.) B (who was in a romantic relationship with A) then removed the ammo for the abode. Figuring that no ammunition could be obtained from 10pm to 7am bought time for B to talk to A...

Thank you for sharing that. A "first-person replay" of a smart person managing the situation as best they could.

Personally, I find it interesting that some of the current framings of the debate is that is those who don't understand guns are those who are against them.

My personal experience is those who are very well trained on how to use guns are the first who want them to be in the hands of those who are also very well trained. And, "straight". And, not angry. Etc, etc, etc...

Having said all of that, I understand that the "Great US of A" is a unique situation... IMHO, that is best observed at a distance.

For those who are outside of that particular system... For those inside... Blink three times if you need help...

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Someone (A) that I know was irate/depressed enough that others (B & C) were concerned about their well being.
<snip>
Having a loaded firearm there would have made it too easy for A to act out on their emotions.

That was a Good Deed among good deeds. You may have helped prevent someone from implementing a "permanent solution to a temporary problem."

I hope "A" is doing better now. But even if they have not made good choices since then, that is not your (or "B" or "C's") fault. At least you helped insure that they had the privilege of choice.

I have heard/read that people seriously contemplating suicide often fix on a method, and if unable to use that method, do not formulate an alternate method, and so stay alive.

And you never know...

In December 1840, there was a man who became unhinged (perhaps at the prospect of his best friend leaving the area), broke off his engagement, and fell into a depression to the point of becoming bedridden. He didn't have a gun, but his friends became so concerned they hid the most obvious means of suicide, his razor.

He did make it through the rough patch, and did marry his intended. He later became the sixteenth President of the United States.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by xilman

The right to harm astophysicists.

What's that?

[Dr Sardonicus]

Utah police: Man told 4-year-old to fire at officers

MIDVALE, Utah (AP) — Investigators believe a man told his 4-year-old child to fire at officers following a dispute over his order at a McDonald's drive-thru in suburban Salt Lake City on Monday, police said. An officer was able to swipe at the gun as it was fired, directing the bullet away.

The unidentified man brandished a gun at the pick-up window at the restaurant in Midvale, demanding that his order be corrected, a spokesperson for the Unified Police Department, Sgt. Melody Cutler, said. After workers asked that he pull to a waiting area while they corrected his order, they called police, she said.

The man did not cooperate and had to be pulled him from the car, Cutler said. But, as officers were taking the man into custody, one looked back and saw a gun pointing from a rear window, she said. The officer who swiped the gun to the side as it was fired also yelled "kid" to other officers after seeing how young the shooter was, Cutler said.

A witness observed the man tell the 4-year-old, who was in the backseat with a 3-year-old sibling, to shoot the gun, Cutler said. She declined to elaborate.