Every time I see someone say that even the most lenient of gun regulations shouldn’t be passed in the U.S., all I can do is picture them at home calling their guns “precious” like Gollum.
Im someone who likes to shoot a gun at targets at the range. I find it SO creepy and unnerving when it becomes clear that someone would like to shoot at a person. They don’t usually outright say it, but some make it clear in other ways.
Right? Like in my ideal world, guns would be a hobby for weird nerds in the same way fencing is today. The one or two times I have felt like there’s even a small chance I may need to use a gun in self defense were terrifying and stressful.
There’s quite a few hobbies where the other people who meet up to participate as a group as a group are a huge turnoff.
Guns are one of those hobbies for me.
I would love to talk about the amazing mechanics and different approaches guns have to firing an exploding charge to move a mass of metal at supersonic speeds just like I love talking about the mechanical parts of trains and cars. But the gun crowd tends to have too high of a proportion of very vocal terrible people.
If you like guns as a technology Open Source Defense is a good newsletter imo. They don’t delve into politics thankfully but look at how laws are implemented, improving safety at scale etc
Thanks for the recommendation
I would love to talk about the amazing mechanics and different approaches guns have to firing an exploding charge to move a mass of metal at supersonic speeds
You need to hang out with gunsmiths. Those are the folks having those kinds of conversations.
See if you can find yourself a group with operation blazing sword. Whatever you do, LGS usually have just FUDDs who want to talk how turnip daddy is going to make everything like it was back in the 50s again…most of the sane ass people who are into owning and shooting are online now (there are still a shit ton of magats but just avoid those places). It also helps if you can find a group that has a private range, it’ll make it a lot easier to setup times to go enjoy shooting.
A couple years ago I joined a private shooting club. They have a range with targets from 10-300 yards. It was so cool to shoot there, and all the other members were total marksmanship nerds. Seeing all the great equipment, and ridiculous scopes was always fun, and the other members were nice to talk to. There were no soldier LARPers there. We operated as our own range masters, and everyone took safety very seriously. It was a refreshing change from the public range. Unfortunately I moved a couple hours away from that range, so it didn’t make sense to continue paying the membership anymore. Now I just go to the mountains to shoot.
The “Go ahead and make my day” crowd.
Ew what a horrible, gross thing to say
Heard it a buncha times without ever really hearing it
It’s a reference to the movie Dirty Harry
That does make it better!
Actually Sudden Impact same actor tho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy-eMIXT4LM
These days it’s FAFO. I used to work with someone and he would shoehorn that into conversations completely unprovoked…like he itching to find any excuse to shoot someone
There’s a severe epidemic of “I wish a motherfucker would” going around.
Can’t find it now, but there was an image of a police target floating around that had the outline of a person holding up a cell phone camera.
Dystopian AF.
They don’t usually outright say it, but some make it clear in other ways.
Like showing up at the range in full combat gear. Dude, simma downa!
I don’t think this is an actual case of that. I have a few friends that get kitted out with plate carriers and night vision for the range and it’s just LARPing. No different than ren faire people showing up to the faire in steel plate when obviously there isn’t some sword fight that’s about to break out at the fairgrounds.
It’s dorky but generally not malicious.
As a former soldier, soldier LARPers make me very uncomfortable.
Totally fair. Most of these people haven’t experienced combat in any way. I’m just saying the motivation is mostly fun instead of some demented desire to kill.
It is very different than ren faire people showing up in military gear obsolete for hundreds of years, you can kill an entire crowd of people with an assault rifle in seconds, a person carrying around a murder weapon of that spontaneous ability to catastrophically induce violence isn’t “LARPing” they are normalizing carrying around a murder weapon and being utterly obsessed with it which even if their motivations are innocent provides a nice big smokescreen of normalcy for the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world to hide behind.
I am not even making an argument against guns here, I am just pointing out how much more lame and uncool this is than ren faire or LARPing stuff .
you can kill an entire crowd of people with an assault rifle in seconds
You’ve never fired a gun, have you? There is a massive amount of misinformation out there, and that’s not how any modern firearms made for the civilian market (including AR-15s) operate.
they are normalizing carrying around a murder weapon and being utterly obsessed with it
How so? We are talking about people who like to wear gear when they go to the range for fun. Thinking it would be fun to wear a bulletproof vest at the range or wearing NODs so you can shoot at night doesn’t imply any of those things.
even if their motivations are innocent provides a nice big smokescreen of normalcy for the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world to hide behind
How? A range trip isn’t “normalizing” anything nefarious regardless of what you choose to wear to the range. It’s just a range trip.
I am just pointing out how much more lame and uncool this is than ren faire or LARPing stuff
I don’t wear gear to the range but I know folks who do, and also go to faire and belong to a group who likes to fight with foam swords. From my perspective, it’s really the same deal. Dorky/nerdy people who like to dress up for fun. IMO it’s worth giving your fellow humans the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming the worst.
You’ve never fired a gun, have you? There is a massive amount of misinformation out there, and that’s not how any modern firearms made for the civilian market (including AR-15s) operate.
Yes I have, save your “civilian ar-15s aren’t automatic or burst fire so they aren’t technically assault rifles or military weapons” nonsense for someone else you can more easily pull the “bro have you even shot a real gun” condescending card on, an assault rifle is more effective and lethal especially in the hands of some panicking chud like Kyle Rittenhouse if it is only capable of single fire except in the case of a driveby style hit. Exhibit A: most modern military doctrines.
I don’t wear gear to the range but I know folks who do, and also go to faire and belong to a group who likes to fight with foam swords. From my perspective, it’s really the same deal.
When was the last time a bunch of rennaisance faire nerds turned on the news and saw that someone else had just murdered 30 kids in a school dressed up in the same kind of costume they all like to wear… with the same brand and model of “foam” sword? … and then just kept on dressing up in that same costume as the bodies of children pile up after school shootings happen over and over again repeatedly to the point that it feels fucking normalized as something that just happens ?
That is the difference, or at least one of them.
Yes I have
Fooled me. You wouldn’t have said that if you had much experience with guns because it’s patently untrue to anyone who does
save your “civilian ar-15s aren’t automatic or burst fire so they aren’t technically assault rifles or military weapons” nonsense
What? This is true but that’s not my point at all. I simply don’t care if they are military weapons or not. The entire point of the second amendment is for the citizenry to pose a threat against tyranny, which could include the military. Civilian ownership of effective weapons is part and parcel with that.
You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with some preconceived idea of who you assume I am. That already says a lot about your viewpoint.
When was the last time a bunch of rennaisance faire nerds turned on the news and saw that someone else had just murdered 30 kids in a school dressed up in the same kind of costume they all like to wear
Once again. What? You’re acting like school shooters all show up wearing BDUs, NODs and plate carriers which is just wildly wrong.
But, even if we accept for a moment that were true, normal people with healthy viewpoints are capable of separating themselves and their motivations from bad people who just happen to wear the same clothing. I wouldn’t throw out my favorite t-shirt just because someone did something terrible wearing the same type of shirt. Neither would me wearing that shirt somehow normalize shootings like you seem to imagine it would.
If someone went on a stabbing spree with a shun chefs knife I wouldn’t turn around and throw out my favorite kitchen knife because it’s the same model. Nor would I be normalizing stabbings by continuing to chop onions with my favorite knife.
What? This is true but that’s not my point at all. I simply don’t care if they are military weapons or not. The entire point of the second amendment is for the citizenry to pose a threat against tyranny, which could include the military. Civilian ownership of effective weapons is part and parcel with that.
Do you really think an assault rifle is going to give you that critical edge against an f-16 or armored fighting vehicle vs a hunting style rifle? What kind of war do you think you will be fighting that this would actually make a meaningful difference?
Weapons were entirely different things when the second amendment was made, that is your interpretation of the second amendment that a fully kitted ar-15 with high capacity magazines fits the definition of what the writers of the constitution had in mind when the wrote the second amendment is and frankly it doesn’t matter too much after a certain point if the writers of the constitution wrote this part of the law without ANY of the modern context of how much more violence a single person with a weapon can do in a short time.
You would have thought that after January 6th/George Floydd protests, and the lack of justice that followed both, would have finally shown liberals they cannot rely on cops and the “justice” system for personal protection.
Warren vs district of Columbia
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
Yet here we are.
My body, my choice to protect it the way i wish. Fuck off gun grabbers. Prisoners are forced to give up all their rights and yet they are still not safe in prison. I refuse to be your prisoner.
Some people think that situations where they can rely on others’ strength are normal.
Thus they may agree with need for weapons and self-defense, because “it’s a dangerous time”, but not when everything is in order again. Not even thinking that said “dangerous time” somehow happened and will happen again.
Guns are similar to fire extinguishers and defibrillators in that most of time they are not needed.
Guns are meant to extinguish lives. The others are meant to save them.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
The reality is that the attacker forfeits their right to life for the duration of their attack: the life saved holds greater legal, moral, and ethical value than the life wasted on the attacker.
Guns are meant to extinguish threats, not lives. They do, indeed, save lives.
How do they extinguish threats?
Seriously this is the same bullshit “the civil war was about states’ rights” argue.
The most common way they extinguish a threat is by convincing the attacker to fuck off with great rapidity, when they realize their intended victim is capable of returning harm. This “fucking off” saves the life of the intended victim.
But I suspect you’re referring to the taking of the attacker’s forfeited life, which extinguishes the threat posed by that attacker, saving the life of the victim.
You do realize that the law does not criminalize “justifiable homicide”, right? You do realize the amorality of counting a “justifiable homicide” as the “taking of a life”? You do realize the deceit required to conflate criminal and justifiable homicide, right?
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats. I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
A gun solves a problem by killing it. You’re purposely dodging this obvious truth with word salads and faux-technical sounding bullshit.
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats.
No.
While certainly true, I don’t need that fact to be true to demonstrate the more important point. I elect not to support that point. For this discussion, you are free to consider that a concession.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
This was the first line of my initial response to you. There is no moral or ethical dilemma with using deadly force to stop a deadly attack.
I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
You’ve got it backwards. The law on justifiable homicide arises from moral and ethical grounds: It is morally and ethically permissible to use deadly force against an attacker. It is not morally or ethically permissible to punish a victim for killing their attacker. Those two points demand a narrow exception to the general rule that “killing is wrong”. The laws on self defense and justifiable homicide reflect the morality and ethicality of using deadly force on an attacker.
Likewise, it is immoral and unethical to count the death of an attacker as a “killing”, at least for purposes of denouncing the use of the tool used to cause their death. Conflating the deaths of attackers with the deaths of victims is deceitful, immoral and unethical.
Yes, they are. It’s like demolishing dangerous construction. Guns to extinguish lives on firm trajectory to extinguishing yours are part of just guns to extinguish lives. When you solve this human problem with some technology or philosophy smart thing, let me know.
I agree. I would much rather rely on myself for protection. Forget trusting the cops, I don’t trust the prosecutors. There are so many liberal prosecutors who are just drop cases, and judges who set low bail, or refuse to impose certain sentence types on repeat offenders, etc. People who want to take away guns are removed.
You are seriously arguing that the corruption in our police system means there is no protection? This is objectively false.
I would trust an officer over Ultragagginggunnut any day of the week.
The only prisoners are our school children who have to drill for gun violence in their school. Kids who live in fear that their classmates will kill them because they brought another gun nutters unsecured gun to school.
The prisoners are the wives and partners of every abusive gun owner. Scared to leave because they know that it could cost their lives. You ever been raped at gun point? Yeah, didn’t think so.
The prisoners are our society that has to deal with the commercialization of gun ownership and the radicalization of the NRA. Everyday they make our society more unsafe in the name of profits.
The problem isn’t guns, it is people like you that think they solve problems. Guns create problems not solve them.
They need to be tightly controlled to keep them away from people who are mentally unwell. People that think they are the “prisoners” fantasizing about defending their rights and overthrowing the government.
You must be white passing and at least middle class to trust bringing the police into any situation.
Like anyone who grew up poor you know not to trust anyone including officers. I have called 911 on guys beating their girlfriends. I have had an officer pull their gun on me for no reason. I have lived in big cities, small, and rural so I know a thing or two.
I would trust an officer over Ultragagginggunnut any day of the week.
False dichotomy. Those aren’t the only choices.
In your entire comment, you failed to realize that “Doomsider” is a perfectly viable option.
With “Doomsider” being an option for you, “officer” should be considered a distant second.
When you actually want to respond to what I said I will be waiting.
Certainly. Thank you for your patience, and for the opportunity for discussion.
I respectfully and summarily reject the underlying premise of what you were saying. Your comment did not consider that you are the person best capable of providing your own “protection”.
I submit that the regulatory environment needs to recognize and respect that fact.
Still waiting
What are you waiting for? I have responded twice before this comment. Your comment is premised on a false dichotomy. When we eliminate that premise, the remainder of your comment doesn’t make much sense.
One route forward: You could support your position on a different premise. Another route: You could abandon your previous position and adopt a new one. I eagerly await your choice.
Nice try, let me turn on my Rivalarrival translator: Ah yes, it is coming in clear now. You did not like what I said but you have no rebuttal so you hyper focused on one thing. You invented a false premise and remembered to project that like any good bullshitter.
Still waiting.
I know you got downvoted, but in other countries and anywhere other than lemmy, the US and truth social, this is actually normal
It’s crazy that extremist groups like the NRA have managed to brainwash so many Americans
Oh I know what I was getting into by commenting on their post. I will gladly take downvotes from gun nutters.
I appreciate what you say though because in the US it seems easy to question your sanity at times.
Yep… Whats crazy, is that literally a few months ago, everyone was pointing out how weird the nutters on the right wing are. And how rediculous the gun nuts are
Now, somehow, there seems to have been some kind of concerted campaign that have made a lot of these people start to act exactly like the extreme right, where shooting seemingly anyone you don’t like is apparently “ok”. But at least a lot of those guys tied them to random conspiracy theories, whereas, what I’m seeing suddenly by some people on the left, is basically just blatant wanting to kill certain people
[Attenborough voice]
“And here we see a wild false equivalency in it’s natural habitat. Camouflaged and perfectly suited to it’s environment, it goes unnoticed by many”
“Some humans have started recording the mating calls of this and other closely related cousins in the misinformationum ridiculosus family in hope of harnessing the power of the sounds for themselves, results have been varied”
Yeah, I cringe whenever I hear about the murderous left. Propaganda is one hell of a drug.
I am a left winger. I’ve voted for the greens since I started voting
And sorry, but America is full of crazies who are just calling for violence now.
The right wing is calling for murdering random people like fauci, whereas a lot of people from the left seem to be happy CEO’s are getting shot and encouraging it
It’s totally fucked. And yes, even Reddit is doing a better job moderating it at the moment.
Nobody should be encouraging murder. Has this actually improved the health care at United? No. They’ll just replace the CEO and get more body guards
But, if you encourage the development of laws, that might have an impact. Or it would have, until you guys voted for Trump
Well gun supporters have been at war with the truth for a long time. People I call gun nutters have an unhealthy obsession with guns. They keep them unsecured and loaded and like to fantasize about killing people in “self defense”.
America’s obsession with guns definitely cuts both ways but when you compare the left and right wing 95% of attacks come from the right. It is an unfortunate reality but the people who we can least trust are the ones who are the most for guns.
Really though this is a problem of regulation. Commercial interests have manipulated people into buying tools they don’t need which are misused and cause untold suffering.
All of your responses are being downvoted and for good reason. Maybe you need to rethink some things
In other countries this is normal. Including here in Australia
Maybe you need to rethink some things and get some perspective from countries where we don’t have regular mass shootings. Our kids don’t need to do training for school shootings
What you’re doing clearly isn’t working
That’s also why we didn’t get people trying to overthrow our Capitol
It’s absolutely ridiculous at this point for an American to be giving any advice about guns
Rethink that you are another gun apologist? Hard pass on that goober.
I choose to protect my body by you not having guns.
Edit: I don’t, but I think you can see the error in your argument now.
I’m sure this sounded convincing in your head.
these people are such idiots. besides, the founding fathers didn’t exclusively intend the second amendment to be used against petty thieves or violent criminals… they wanted it to be used to resist tyranny in all its forms. One form of tyranny is prosecutors dropping violent felons cases, judges setting low bail on repeat violent offenders, and federal governments throwing the borders open and granting special protection to violent criminals that come across the border. The government at best can punish crime, but it can never defend us. I am more than willing to accept school shootings if it means I can shoot someone that I deem a threat if necessary.
It’s the entire argument in a nutshell yes. A common-sense response to those desires is what separates the countries that don’t have much gun crime from yours.
There are all kinds of discussions we can have about this, not the least of which is that “no guns” simply isn’t an option in a country with 500 million firearms and no central firearm registry.
But, really, all that stuff is beside the point. Guns are the ultimate equalizer. They equalize the weak and the strong. An 80 year old grandma can defend herself against a 25 year old man using a gun. A suppressed populace can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using guns.
Gun crime has negligible impact on most Americans; we have about half as many firearm homicides as traffic deaths annually.
Philosophically, the gun community feels having that equalizer and balance against tyranny is more important than the impacts of gun crime. Whether or not more gun control will decrease gun crime is irrelevant if a person feels that free firearm access is the more important of the two issues.
Btw, regardless of your views, if you come to the US you should shoot some guns. It’s fun and you’ll be glad you did.
preach! This! couldn’t have said it better myself.
Wow, so we have too many guns so no reason to regulate has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. It is like common sense showed up to have you shart in their face
Guns are the ultimate equalizer sounds like something a weak assed little Nazi would say. Why does every other modern civilized country not need them then? It is like you look at the worst case and say it is now the best case
I could give a shit about the feels of gun nutters. To think we have to appease homicidal radicals is fucking bonkers.
I think most people will pass on the shooting thing. There is a lot more to the USA than a bunch of gun waving lunatics.
The working class must remain armed.
honestly it is the only way they can throw off the bourgeoisie. people who want to deprive the proletariat of guns are class traitors or posers from the bourgeoisie.
I have traveled most of the country and 95% of Americans are normal people who just want the best for the people around them. They just have different perspectives on what that means.
You should let your hate go, my friend. I promise you’ll be happier for it.
Same and it is clear 95% are not gun nutters.
Reality is a harsh mistress and your gun rhetoric is absolute garbage.
We have not only more guns in circulation than people, but a constitutional right to those guns that you would have to overcome to remove them all.
I never expected to see a “those who disagree with me are actual Nazis” in the wild, used apparently straight faced. Godwin’s law kicked in very quickly.
Proud of being dumb I guess. Hur dur we got most guns than anyone and a million deaths over the last twenty years to prove it. Aww shucks.
I never expected to see so many gun apologist bootlickers. Better run cause the gun grabbers are cumin fer yah.
Countries that “don’t have much gun crime” = countries with acid attacks
This made me laugh. You sound like Philomena Cunk!
Surely, all that needs to happen is that everyone needs to carry bottles of acid. It will be completely safe in the hands of well-trained acid handlers, and accidents will only happen to people who weren’t trained well enough! This means you wouldn’t even need to regulate it!
How about you just give them guns so they can shoot the acid attackers. Turns out, you don’t need much training with a gun. Point shoot. Very simple. Point shoot. School shooters figure it out just fine.
I don’t even know where to start.
There will be fewer acid attacks with guns because everyone will have access to a way more convenient and easy way of harming each other, yes.
So…problem solved?
Which side of the argument are you actually on?
How would guns have helped in the George Floyd case?
The BLM protestors who marched with guns in Georgia didn’t get fucked with by the cops at all, because the cops were scared. Look it up.
Other BLM protestors got beat down by cops in riot gear, in countless examples across the country (when the protestors were unarmed).
Is this a serious question?
Do you believe armed protesters are easier or more difficult to suppress?
I don’t think that question is as simple as you think. Peaceful protest is much more likely to garner public support, at least until things are critical. And taking weapons to a protest in the US seems like an almost guaranteed way to die, one way or another. Not saying the cops are well trained with weapons, but neither are the general public.
there is a point where peaceful protest is not enough, you realize that, right?
More protesters would have been shot. The movement would have been demonized even more than it was.
The protests were already overwhelming peaceful. To re-envision history saying “moars guns” would have helped is pretty bizarre gun nutters nonsense.
Republicans really be hating different sexualities when they themselves are ammo-sexuals
And in some places the ‘h’ is silent 😉
…what?
'Omosexuals, and 'eterosexuals? Yeah I think that place is England and they just talk like that. Its their language they’re allowed to speak it horribly
When the average right winger treats guns like toys it’s a good sign for every leftist to also own guns.
I can’t fathom how people saw police beating protesters to death in 2020, are decrying the new Trump presidency as the rise of fascism in America, and still believe that the government should be the only ones with firepower in their hands.
Now is exactly the time when the left should be rallying behind the second amendment.
I dont see a problem with owning guns. Its just taken too lightly in the states. To get a gun where im at, you need to get certified - theoretical, physical and psychological tests are done. And no one starts pissing about personal freedoms if they fail these tests. I think you also need to be member of a shooting club. Point is, you need to demonstrate your ability to handle a weapon responsibly. Im not one to confuse correlation with causation but… you dont see many stories of shootings here.
Aren’t shooting clubs and the licensing prohibitively expensive? This is just to disarm the working class. If the poor can’t afford equal protection they are slaves.
I wouldn’t look at it from that perspective. Similar situation with driving licenses, which require first aid training, 20+ hours of driving lessons with an instructor, theory lessons, testing, and costly things of that nature. If you want a gun and are fit to own one, you will not have a problem doing so, no matter your class.
At the same time, sometimes driving license requirements feel like they are too high and a racket.
I got my scooter license by answering 48/50 questions right and doing a 4 hour practical course at the driving center to get it on the same day. I paid $50 to do it.
This license allows me to drive a 50cc bike like an Aprilia RS50, which can hit the speed limit when I drive it on the same roads as everyone else.
First aid is fair enough, but why do I have to pay $1500 to attend a driving school and answer 100 questions or pay $80 to take the 2% chance of passing it at the license test center (because the test is graded by cops and one of the cushy jobs for them before retirement is as advisors at driving schools) to be able to ride something that is marginally faster and heavier?
And that is where the difference between privileges and rights is. Privileges exist by definition for the privileged.
Cool, if the dumb as shit fascist down the street owns a gun and wants you to die for being different then you need to protect yourself.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
How would you stop a fascist with a gun that wants to put you in a camp?
If you are lgbtq, on any mental health medication, or a immigrant as a result of natrual born citizenships then you need to realistically ask yourself this question, because that’s the stated policy of the new president.
Real obvious answer, you shoot them.
“how would you stop a fascist with a gun that wants to put you in a camp”
If they were really a fascist, I would shoot them.
Demonstrably false.
“The actual data show that some of these kind of heroic, Hollywood moments of armed citizens taking out active shooters are just extraordinarily rare,” Mr. Lankford said.
In fact, having more than one armed person at the scene who is not a member of law enforcement can create confusion and carry dire risks. An armed bystander who shot and killed an attacker in 2021 in Arvada, Colo., was himself shot and killed by the police, who mistook him for the gunman.
It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them. At Seattle Pacific University in 2014, a student security guard pepper sprayed and tackled a gunman who was reloading his weapon during an attack that killed one and injured three others. The guard took the attacker’s gun away and held the attacker until law enforcement arrived. When a gunman entered a classroom at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in 2019, a student tackled him. The student was shot and killed, but the police chief said the attack would have had a far worse death toll had the student not intervened.
65% Stopped without a gun
34% Stopped with a gun
15ish% of Americans carry sometimes, around 7% always.
Gotta be honest, those numbers are looking pretty good if only 7% of people always carry but 34% of shootings were stopped by one of those 7%. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that a good majority of the remaining 65% weren’t stopped with a gun because nobody there had one at the time. Same for the ones that weren’t stopped by any bystanders armed or otherwise.
In at least one of those police just stood outside with theirs for two hours.
Where did you get that “65%” and “34%” from? It doesn’t match the information in the graph you are responding to.
Then what percent of 64 is 42 and 22?
Oh, I see. You’re only counting the times when a bystander successfully intervened. (And now you’re being snarky about it, rather than just saying that’s what you did.)
In my interpretation, the 113 times where the attacker left the scene are also relevant.
Well we could count the times where nobody intervened, but that doesn’t negate that “that means there was nobody there with a gun to intervene” either. (And I was born snarky tyvm.)
Sure they’re relevant, it’s just that in most of them there was no gun other than the one held by the shooter (who in many cases wasn’t allowed to bring it either) and nobody stopped him with their judo.
Of the ones that did get stopped, 34% were stopped with something that is only 8% likely to be there. That’s still significant numbers whether you like it or not.
Even still, 22 is 9% of 249, that’s still at least consistent with “likelihood gun there” based on 8% of carriers. I’d say it further supports my guess that “when not, it because gun not there.”
And none of this even takes into account the propensity to choose gun free zones as targets further lessening the likelihood of armed response, but I think I’ll mention that now.
Finally, it’s a bit out of the scope of mass shootings alone but as for defensive gun use per year Harvard estimates it at 100,000/yr, which is more than our gun deaths including suicide yearly. That is also worth mention as while mass shootings themselves are also rare, defense with firearms happens more than death with firearms yearly as a whole.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that a good majority of the remaining 65% weren’t stopped with a gun because nobody there had one at the time.
And yet there is no way of knowing that, so you’re just making an unprovable assertion. I showed data.
That 34% came from your data, feel free to search for the amount of carriers and choose your favorite estimate and use that, it’s still lower than 34%. As for the motivations for “not stop with gun” think critically, it’s simply more likely that if such a low percentage of people carry daily, there’s a higher chance that nobody there has one at any given location/time (aside from expected locations like “gun store” or “police station” where of course the likelihood of the presence of guns jumps to 100%, but for some reason those are rarely targeted). Would you rather stop a shooter with a gun of your own or risk bare handing it?
choose your favorite estimate
See above, re: unprovable assertion.
Yes yes ignore any other data, I’m gonna be honest dude I don’t actually care if you believe the data or not, you can look it up if you really care but you’re clearly more interested in dismissing it so, have a nice day I guess, this little subthread has reached its logical conclusion, goodbye.
The best way to stop a good guy with a gun is to shoot first (in countries where there’s a good chance you might be shot if you’re committing a crime)
Of course, if you go from serial robber to serial murderer, that brings a whole lot more heat. Probably best to just get like, a job and stuff, less people get shot painting houses.
facts.
Sounds like my former coworker showing off his new gun on Facebook a few years back, with the post “I can’t wait to use this to defend my family.”
People like to think that because they own a gun, if they ever got to use it they would be John Wick.
What they don’t realize is that Keanu Reeves does a ton of training, and even occasionally does competitions
Also, it’s a movie, not real life. John wick would have died hundreds of times in those movies if even some of those events were real.
Man, I would be pretty upset if I dedicated a bunch of my time to compete, and then a guy who got paid millions of dollars to train with some of the best experts in the field showed up as a competitor. That would be like entering an amateur competition and there’s a fucking Navy Seal in line next to you.
Psst, (some) Navy SEALs (and ex-thereof) shoot competitions too. So there’s the mega rich celebs, the SEALs, and the regular ol’ civilian that’ll actually win, and 200 other people.
My advice is “show up to have fun, if you win you win.”
I think nearly everyone in the firearms community realizes how much time and effort Keanu puts into training.
I think the opposite is more true; meaning that people OUTSIDE the firearms community have little to no idea how much time and effort it takes to be anything like what he looks like in the movies. Nor do they realize how far removed the movies they watch are from reality. Suppressors are not silent, shooting things 50 yards away with a pistol is almost always going to result in a miss, your ears are ringing after just one or two shots making conversations after a gun battle impossible, and so on.
Always loved that archer got the noise right in the show…mawp
That’s the sort of person who shouldn’t own a firearm. That should actually be added as a question for the background check form.
As someone seriously considering their first firearm purchase, my main thought is “I hope this is a gigantic waste of time and money”.
It doesn’t have to be! It can be fun to go to the range or competitions, you can “get your money’s worth” so to speak that way! You don’t have to “use” it to use it, know what I mean.
(Of course, if need be it’s there for that too, “god” or whatever metaphor you wish willing, yadda yadda you know.)
I don’t really have the space, time and money to make a hobby of it unfortunately.
It doesn’t take any more space than simply owning the gun and safety gear to go shoot for fun.
If you’re going to own a gun you really ought to go out and use it sometimes so you are somewhat competent in handling the firearm.
space, time and money.
Also, I’m not shooting a firearm off in my sub-1-acre suburban neighborhood property.
That’s not what I’m suggesting. The vast majority of gun owners don’t shoot their guns on their property. I live in a condo.
There are indoor and outdoor ranges all over the United States. If you live in a suburb it’s a safe bet that there is a gun range open to the public within a 20 minute drive of your house. Range access is easy and affordable everywhere in the USA. It doesn’t take an immense money or time commitment to go out and shoot every now and then.
If you buy a firearm, but refuse to learn how to use it, it really will be a waste of money because it won’t be useful to you if the time ever did come to need it. Plus you have an obligation to those around you to own a firearm responsibly. Part of responsible firearm ownership is basic competence with the weapon.
Hence why I said it would probably be a huge waste of time and money. What you’ve said is exactly why I don’t have a firearm.
I didn’t mean make it your entire world or anything lol, but fair enough, to each his own.
(You should at least practice enough to become proficient should the need arise however, as that is really more of a safety for bystanders sort of thing, and learn how to be safe in general with it and learn the laws in your area.)
Well, good news, a firearm would achieve the exact opposite of protecting you and your loved one from harm.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25910555/
In fact it’s the opposite. A firearm is far more likely to be involved in an accidental injury or death of someone in the household than it is going to be used in any form of self defense.
If you want to effectively protect yourself, invest in actual home security measures.
So rest assured that any firearm you purchase for self defense is always going to be a huge waste of money.
If you want to effectively protect yourself, invest in actual home security measures.
I already have cameras up around my home, and locks on doors and windows (plus CO and Smoke detectors, because that shit probably kills too). I’m more worried about idealogical/theological fanatics in the near future than I am about a potential robber or serial killer.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I mean, that’s what the battleaxe by my bed is for.
You ever try swinging it in your hallway?
No, but I can always choke up on my grip, or swing vertical with it. IDGAF if someone is in the hallway, they can have whatever they want out there.
Well, good luck with that!
Is a funny sentence but doesn’t really apply here.
No …no it doesn’t. These studies are stupid levels of flawed. Not all crimes are reported to the police where nothing happened. Most DGUs no shot is fired, but they don’t get counted because they’re not reported.
The studies that try and show that a gun in the home is more dangerous use suicide statistics as well, which is like saying you’re more likely to drown in a pool if you own one…which the answer is “no shit”.
Yes it does, there’s many studies across all the USA. It’s one of the most studied thing ever.
No it is not. Even the one you linked is from a poll. The CDC pulled the original numbers for DGUs because they’re basically impossible to obtain properly and the CDC didn’t like that it didn’t paint guns in a bad light
Here is the study that was requested by the cdc and by Obama…
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.
This part talks about the study you directly linked, which states that respondents were not ansed specifically about defensive gun use.
On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.
So no, it’s not, it’s also lacking heavily in studies…and as I said why one of reasons the CDC pulled the numbers.
TL;DR
Ammosexuals will write down novels trying to justify their urge to gun down people.
Way to ignore the data kid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Haile_Kifer_and_Nicholas_Brady
TLDR: man lures teens into his home by leaving his house wide open so he could shoot and kill them.
The absolute sicko made audio recordings where he floated about killing them.
This case is horrible, but you have misrepresented it in your comments. The teens broke a window and entered his house with the intention to rob it—it was not left wide open. The recording devices were turned on because he knew they were robbing the house. His first shots to stop the intruders were legal.
Where the crime occurred is that the original shots did not kill them, and then he executed them after they were downed. He also did not report the bodies for a day.
Don’t get me wrong, dude is a psychopathic asshole, but misrepresenting the series of events doesn’t help anybody.
With the premise the OP presented, I expected something worse than what was actually there. It was still horrible, but the impact was lessened for the reasons you listed.
Interesting how someone can manufacture consent like that by shifting your initial view.
They weren’t, they went over this in the trial.
He became the aggressor when he removed barriers to entry and laid in wait which is a negative defense for self defense.
Wikipedia says they broke a window to enter, and that can be heard on audio—I’m not trying to argue with everything, but how is a closed window that had to be broken for entry not a barrier?
They did, read the testimony. He has the window blocked and he removed it so the window would be the easiest way to enter.
He set a trap, there’s no legitimate purpose for that.
The dude clearly murdered them and had violent vigilante fantasies—I don’t argue that one bit.
That said, they still came up to his house, broke a window, and entered with the intention to burgle it. It doesn’t really matter if the window was previously blocked or made of paper—breaking and entering with the intention of burglary is a crime, and having no block on a window isn’t enticement to have your house burgled.
Again, before anyone thinks I’m defending him, I fully agree that he is a murderer. I just think the burglars weren’t innocent either. In Reddit lingo, “everyone sucks here”.
You are defending him boss.
The jury took less than three hours to establish as a matter of fact that none of the shootings were justified or in defense. It’s a fact now, your opinion is just that… An opinion and one not backed by either statute or the court case.
I already requested the link for the info you are referencing, and I have told you where I found mine. Please provide a source, I would like to learn.
If you’re arguing that both the murderer and murder victims “suck” maybe you need to rethink your priorities…
I’m not saying one is worse than the other, rather that both fucked around and found out.
It’s been a long time since I’ve heard about this case, but my recollection was that he left his garage door open and parked away from his house so it would appear open and unoccupied. I didn’t see anything on the Wikipedia page that refutes that.
Smith had been visiting neighbors when he saw Kifer, whom he suspected was responsible for the burglaries, driving past his home. He commented that he needed to get ready for her and went back to his home. Upon entering his home, Smith turned on a recording device he owned. He removed the light bulbs from the ceiling lights and positioned himself in a chair that was obscured from view. He heard the window upstairs break and Brady climb in (captured on audio).
There may have been a window from the garage to the house or something, but it clearly says they broke a window, entered his home, and proceeded to the basement where they were shot. He had previously been burgled in the garage too, which Wikipedia says he was unaware about until police found evidence of a prior burglary. The house had been burgled previously as well, which is why he was looking out for people casing his house.
I hope none of this comes off as a defense of that asshole, but facts matter, and those teens did commit a crime. I don’t think they deserved to be executed for it, but he was within his rights to defend himself when they broke in to his home. He was not within his rights to execute them after the threat was over.
but he was within his rights to defend himself when they broke in to his home.
No he wasn’t, read the actual case transcript.
He was not within his rights to execute them after the threat was over.
There was never a threat, you really really need to read the court transcripts.
It depends on the State for specific legality.
Armed or not, an actual threat or not, an intruder into an occupied home leaves benefit of the doubt at the entry point they used to get in. It might have been intended as a burglary instead of a home invasion, but the perpetrator does not get to make that distinction.
There is a tangible difference between regular property crime like shoplifting, fraud, or theft outside of a dwelling and the violation of a home. And another tangible difference if that home is occupied.
Sure, this is adjudicated though there’s absolutely zero question to it at this point.
No one said they did.
Correct, the jury instructions are public and literally all of that is in it.
I’m not even quite sure what your point is.
The US is over-policed, while simultaneously being under-policed for certain demographics, by a street gang operating under the color of law. We have an overabundance of bad shoots by the cops executing people for nonviolent propert crimes that needs to be dealt with. This is a real issue.
There is also a tendency for some to conflate that with self defense of/in a home under the (generally correct) idea that no property crime deserves the death penalty, like McDonalds managed to conflate the coffee burned old lady with frivolous lawsuits. I am saying that once you break into a home it is no longer “property crime” but something else.
Link?
I probably have my copy at home but I’d have to dig.
If you do the case number and FOIA it from the court it was in you’ll get a copy, that’s how I got mine.
With all due respect…
This is the absolute truth. I personally know a guy who pulls out a huge roll of money just to buy a $1 pop from a machine at night. He carries, has been for years. He is trying to get someone to mug him. You know why.
I remember this showing up on Reddit and people sick ass redditors justifying his actions. So sick.
I’m not in any way trying to defend what he did, but am I missing something? It’s written that the teens broke in with the intention to rob the house? Still a planned murder of course, but I think it’s important to mention it, they weren’t just good Samaritans checking in on a neighbour whose door was left open
The kids weren’t blameless. But they didn’t deserve to die.
I agree, but it still felt like the comment wasn’t being genuine. Horrible things can be horrible without making them sound more horrible than they actually were
“preferably a minority”
Honestly, I was thinking of this
White Man & Black Man Carry AR-15 Rifles In Open Carry Video Experiment
A recent video posted to YouTube by Willie Upchuck captures the same incident resulting in two distinctively different responses from police. A White gentleman is politely questioned by police, while a Black man is harshly told to get on the ground at gunpoint.
The black man that volunteered for that must have a death wish. He had to have gone into that thinking there was a very good chance the police would shoot him on sight.
I think the kids filming the experiment were as shocked by the results as anyone watching the video. Very possibly a camera being at the scene of the
criminal misuse of police powerarrest saved the black guy’s life.
“… but if you can’t, please make sure they enter unarmed so I can shoot them safely”
Thanks for reminding me of Cyanide and Happiness’ Guns short.
Lol I have several guns. Some I don’t know if I even have ammo for them at all.
I can’t imagine the mindset these types of owners have. They are afraid and they want to murder someone. I can’t imagine
Hell, the few rifles I have are stored with the firing bolts removed and locked up separately.
If I had to kill somebody, I’d be scarred for life. Even if it was clearly in self defense.
Yet I’ve talked to gun owners who fantasize about getting the drop on a burglar and shooting them dead or something like that. I don’t know if they’re actually that bloodthirsty or just delusional, but either way it’s pretty disturbing.
It’s both.
Our systems have taught them that criminals are worthless disgusting inhuman animals who deserve death, and they’ve never considered the trauma associated with killing someone.
Plenty of veterans lives are ruined by shit like that, and they signed up for it. A little basement dwelling incel couldn’t even comprehend the trauma.
And let’s not forget the statistics of the people who break into your house. It’s likely someone you know. Are you prepared to shoot your friend?
I think it’s the marketing. Everything has to me monetized or giggified and it’s hard for us to just do stuff for no good reason (like collect and/or shoot guns). We’ve got to justify by protecting ou family from the zombie apocalypse or crime waves or something.
I think a lot of it is whistling in the dark as well. Our powerlessness coupled with hyper individualism and lack of social support makes for some pretty uncomfortable truths.
Plus the grab bag of racism and misdirected class fear.
Oh same. I’ve talked with friends about conceal carry. We all agree it would be the scariest thing possible to actually need to use it. We’ll pretty much want to exhaust all other options including running the fuck away first.
We couldn’t imagine the idea of actually living with having murdered someone. I know I’d pretty much immediately end up in therapy to help process it.
I do get what you are saying, and may offer some pov. I do not perceive anyone who breaks into my house as human, simply because I am aware of how weak I am. Not a gun owner, but if I am in kitchen, trust me I am grabbing a knife - anything to level the playing field - and setting myself on fight rather than flight.
But it’s mostly fear and adrenaline. If something happened, I have no doubt I would go for it to secure mine and my partner security. How much of a wreck I’d be later remains to be seen, though for sure it would hit me hard.
Honestly, not much difference between that and chihuahua. Fight to kill out of fear.
Honestly, not much difference between that and chihuahua. Fight to kill out of fear.
Yeah. Everyone has a right to pursue a safe place to be.
If someone or something puts me in an unsafe enough position, I might have to go through them instead of around them to get to safety.
There’s no shame in that. It’s also nothing to be proud of. It just is.
I’ve had two different very realistic dreams (years ago) where I shot someone and both of them were terrifying. It’s not something I’d look forward to. It’d definitely ruin my week if not my entire month.
Yeah. Absolutely. Even having been robbed a few times really messed with my head. I would hate to have to live with worse.
But I still figure people have a right to seek a safe place to be, and cornered people have a right to use violence, to reach a safe place.
I’ll allow there might even be other times when violence might be moral, since life can get pretty complex, but I hope to live my life without having to make that call.
But I believe that when cornered is the only time a human can use violence with a totally free conscience.
It’s why Sun Tzu advised we always give even our worst enemy an escape route. It’s much better to not have to fight at all, than to have to win a fight with a desperate enemy.
I wouldn’t mind having to kill anyone. It would definitely give me joy and excitement although I don’t actively hope I’ll get to use my gun.
You sound like a responsible gun owner and not a gun nut.
That’s really what it comes down to.
These people want an “excuse” to murder someone.
Yes those people do
And then there’s a ton of people that have guns, train when they can and hope they never have to use their skills outside of the range or competitions. We never ever hear about them because they are normal people
The reality is that most of the imagined scenarios which cause a person to want a gun for self defense are rooted in some form of these same delusions. They really are just not as useful in as many situations as people think they are, and these people almost never take far simpler measures to deal with their real threat profile.
Yes. Thankfully not everyone who owns a gun is like these weirdos though.
Anyways, that’s how i killed my daughter.
My I introduce you to a revolutionary new product that helps PID in a dark house:
It’s called the “flishlight.” They’re pretty nifty!
Will it help my wife’s best friend who was shot in the stomach six times by her husband when she got up in the middle of the night to eat something in the kitchen?
Let me introduce you to a revolutionary view about gun violence.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10209983/
It is called reality with gems like, “96% of murder-suicide victims are female.”
Not now, unfortunately while they can produce light so you don’t shoot your wife six times, they sadly lack the ability to alter the space time continuum and change the past, sorry to disappoint. You have to use the flashlight before you shoot the wrong person, the flashlight can’t unshoot someone.
Btw you do know that just because some people kill their wives that doesn’t mean everyone will, right? You worried your wife is the next Jody Arias? No? See it works much the same way here, not every man is going to be Chris Benoit. That’s like that racist “13% of the population 50% of the crime,” it doesn’t mean all black people are criminals, nor does your stat mean “all men” or even “all gunowners” are wifemurderers.
Just because every abuser with a gun abuses their wife doesn’t mean that everyone is an abuser? Well no shit Sherlock.
Now are you going to tell that to the million women who get raped at gun point? Or the four million every year that are threatened by guns!?
No, you are going to make tone deaf jokes about getting a flashlight for your gun so you can see the look on your wife’s face before you pull the trigger.
Well if they’ve been convicted of DV they’re federally barred from firearms ownership, so they shouldn’t have guns. I also doubt your assertion that everyone who abuses their wives and has guns shoots their wives, or there’d be like 40% more dead cop-wives, for instance.
Tell them what? That not every rapist has a gun, not every man is a rapist, and not every gun owner is necessarily a rapist or even a man (did you know they let women buy guns these dsys? Wild I know.) Sure, put em on the phone I’ll tell them (oh and btw I’m also a rape victim, twice!)
More like “you were spouting silly bullshit so I sardonically replied, as one does.” Something is wrong with your thought process that you think “make sure to positively identify your target so you don’t accidentally shoot someone innocent” means “look your wife in the eyes as you purposefully kill her,” I don’t think you should have guns, you seem disturbed.
You are just another gun apologist doing his thing. Must be great to ignore all the suffering because “guns are toys boys”.
It is clear people like you can’t be trusted with a butter knife let alone and actual weapon. You scoff at a million women raped by gun point like it ain’t no big deal.
You can tell them your sorry. In fact we will line them up one at a time and you can let each one know it wasn’t the gun that did it. By the time you tell them all there will be millions more raped.
You can’t apologize to dead ones though so perhaps you can look their kids in the eyes and tell them it wasn’t the gun that killed your mother.
You doubt my assertion? I doubt you care about actual researched papers or facts. I doubt there is anything anyone could say to change your mind because you will refuse to believe it.
It is pretty rich you call me disturbed when everything I said was factual including a very personal experience. I am sorry you feel threatened by the fact that women are disproportionately abused and murdered by the thing you view as a toy.
I live in Alaska where real men have guns as tools not toys so I look at you like you are particularly pathetic. The fact that you fantasize about identifying your target before you kill them says all about your fucked up wanna-be military mindset.
You throw around a million women raped at gunpoint as if the guns are responsible, how many women are raped without guns by chance? Orders of magnitude more? Thought so. Of course I’m giving you flippant responses.
I’m not telling them I’m sorry for shit, I did nothing to them, I’ve raped nobody. I will tell them that the man was responsible not an inanimate object, and I’ll teach them how to defend themselves with one if they want, but make no mistake it was a person that made the decision to rape and you shouldn’t make excuses like “the gun made him do it.”
Sure, a person made that decision, not a gun, don’t make excuses for murderers either.
Oh you think just shooting dark figures is a good idea? Lol cool, you and your “real men” have fun killing innocent people by mistake then, alpha boy. I’ll be over here with the betas and gun safety. You’re a fucking joke lmao.
deleted by creator
Ammosexual
Way too true, I know too many people who are genuinely like this my brother included. If people have this kind of mindset they shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, it is a tragedy waiting to happen.
