all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 80 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"An armed society is a polite society." Because people have to be stupid, crazy, or on drugs to start shit when everyone might be packing heat.

Thank god no one in this country is stupid, crazy, or on drugs.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago

    The really funny thing is that this quote is from "Beyond This Horizon" by Robert A. Heinlein.

    It's one of his lesser works, but it features a government that monitors and encourages human breeding and keeps a lower caste of 'control naturals' to ensure there is wild stock on hand.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_This_Horizon

    full quote

    Well, in the first place an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization. That’s a personal evaluation only. But gun-fighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things that kill off the weak and the stupid these days. But to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Also Gun Industry: "We like fear! More people buy guns!"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Right? Like, this is market research. "If we encourage concealed carry laws in more states, we will foster a wider atmosphere of fear, and we will sell more guns to more people, perpetuating the cycle. Win-win!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago
    [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I don't need to walk around packing. People doing that will just lead to unnecessary conflict. I just need one at home for when we decide it's time to deal with the fascists.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Concealed carry or not, your shit is all fucked up if you find yourself in a situation where you wish you were armed. But if you are armed, you might not also die.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In my state it's illegal to have a concealed pistol without a CPL yet I can guarantee you nearly every week we get another shooting near nightclubs from someone unlicensed and nearly every other day another murder in our highest poverty stricken areas by someone who has obtained a firearm illegally.

    The laws are not working if no one is enforcing them and our courts just spit the criminals back out into the streets.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    We’ll just head back to Wild West days.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Actually, if I remember my history correctly, the so-called Wild West actually has better gun control than the US currently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Did you have a source for this? This sounds very interesting!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Check out the Wikipedia article for the "Shootout at OK Corral" (sorry on phone and having trouble linking url) for the most famous example.

    The catalyst was the sheriff attempting to enforce local Tombstone AZ law which prohibited firearms being carried within city limits.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In South Africa, it is illegal to open carry, unless you are a police officer or security guard. So citizens are required to conceal carry. Yet in the rural areas where I am from, most of the firearm carrying people prefer to open carry, they feel it is a deterrent and easier to reach.

    It's really weird how everyone in America, what I assume we are referring to, wants to conceal carry because the government does not want you to, and here in SA we want to do the opposite because of what the government wants.

    PS this is my opinion from personal experience, maybe a lot more are carrying but I do not see them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    CC and open carry laws vary by state in the US.

    I am in an open carry area with lax laws. Most people don’t open carry because it’s dumb in an urban area. Out in the rural areas it makes more sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    Stat is old, from 2018. Pre-pandemic. Pre-George Floyd.

    ""In the 2018 multigenerational study, respondents were asked to finish this open-ended statement: “People legally carrying concealed guns makes me feel …” Overall, 57 percent of non-gun owners said “less safe,” while another 27 percent said “no impact.” Meanwhile, 28 percent of gun owners specifically said they felt “less safe,” on top another 27 percent who said they felt “no impact.” That meant, the researchers noted, that despite the prominence of concealed carry, a majority of gun owners “still don’t feel safer.”"

    I can say, as a concealed carry permit holder, yeah, I feel safer. But then, my city has been under seige and the cops not only do nothing, they actively work with the people beseiging the city:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disturbing-texts-between-oregon-police-far-right-group-prompts-investigation-n972161

    https://www.opb.org/article/2022/07/14/portland-police-investigation-clears-officer-who-joined-oath-keepers-militia/

    https://theintercept.com/2021/08/23/portland-police-proud-boys-protest/

    As for the new legislation being discussed, the "forced reciprocity", not necessarily an awful idea.

    For example:

    Oregon and Washington share a border, but a concealed carry permit in one is not valid in the other. There is no reciprocity between Oregon and Washington.

    So it's on me, as a responsible gun owner, to plan ahead. "Am I going to Vancouver, WA today?" If I happen to be carrying, I need to be mindful that I do not cross the river into Vancouver.

    I COULD contact the Clark County sheriff and get a WA permit, but to be honest, I don't go to Vancouver often enough to merit that.

    Where it gets squishy is states like Idaho which have no restrictions. "Are you 18? Can you legally own a gun?" that's pretty much it for concealed carry.

    So under the new federal legislation, if it's legal for you in your home state, it's legal for you in ALL states. But home states that don't require registration are going to cause problems in states that do.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    And you think people do feel safer now? That pea shooter in your belt gonna save you against fully armed and armored police and/or national guard who are being ordered to abuse citizens?

    The illusion of safety can be pleasant, but dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Not worried about the cops or national guard or even ICE.

    Worried about the Gravy Seals who would shit themselves if they faced armed opposition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Gravy Seals

    I have no idea how prevalent or dangerous these people are and think they are not the biggest threat - why are you afraid of people who shit themselves?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    I have no idea how your concealed carry is supposed to actually make you safer.

    If it's concealed, a potential assailant isn't going to be stopped because they don't know you're carrying.

    And if they find out you have a gun they might just kill you the moment they're aware of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Concealed carry makes you safer because you have a weapon for when the situation is out of hand and you have no other options. A concealed gun is not a threat or deterrent.

    You deescalate, you disengage, you do everything you can to avoid the conflict. If those fail and you remain in danger, you shoot them.

    If the attacker knows you have the gun, that will escalate things. Which is why you want to make sure they only learn about your gun after you already shot them, justifiably in self defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You deescalate, you disengage, you do everything you can to avoid the conflict. If those fail and you remain in danger, you try to grab your gun. The gun isn't already in your hands, it's concealed somewhere that isn't visible and that means you have to make a move for your gun.

    That move might be what gets you killed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Concealed firearms are carried in a way that is quick to access. The can be drawn in seconds. If an attacker could kill you in the very short time it would take you to access your firearm, it would probably be a bad idea to draw it in that moment.

    If you chose not to draw a concealed firearm, the you look like you're unarmed. The alternative is being actually unarmed, which would leave you in the exact same danger, but with less options. Use the weapon when it is to your advantage, keep it concealed when it isn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Carrying concealed doesn't make you safer, it makes you FEEL safer. Your safety is now up to you, not a 1 hour hold time on 911.

    https://katu.com/news/local/portland-man-waits-on-hold-with-911-for-nearly-45-minutes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Okay, but your safety is also in potential jeopardy because if they find out you have a gun before you can draw they WILL kill you.

    Open carry makes sense because that will actually prevent confrontations. CC doesn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The whole point of carrying concealed is nobody knows. My concealed carry gun is invisible when I carry, which is exactly how it should be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Yes, and the fact that cc is meant to be invisible means it can not prevent danger. Maybe you'll be able to draw fast enough if danger presents itself but it can't actually prevent you from being put in danger in the first place! This creates even more danger, in fact, because you might just get murdered the moment they realize you have a gun and they already have their own weapon drawn.

    Open carry, by contrast, actively prevents danger by preventing conflict because people don't start shit with someone openly carrying a gun. Your cc fantasy is you trying to have it both ways - you want the security blanket of a gun, but you don't want everyone treating you like a freak because you have a gun. You want to pretend you're normal, and in so doing are less safe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    That's what they're going for. Fear sells guns and keeps fascists in power.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    …and Other Obvious Facts by Captain Obvious

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Gun nuts HATE being reminded of this, but historically carrying a concealed weapon was considered cowardly and something only a criminal would do. Because of that it was common for the practice to be illegal.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That was in Ye Olden Days though. Nowadays if you walk into a Walmart with iron on your hip it's going to freak people out and the panic will be more dangerous than the gun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Depends on where. Go to a Walmart in rural Indiana and people won't think twice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 44 comments in c/conservative@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Good.

    Make those elitist corporate executives feel uncomfortable. Make those billionaires fear you. Make those MAGA dipshits who don't believe in your personal choices should be allowed, make them be scared of you.

    Make the conservatives who constantly vote against your interests and want to erase you and your culture because it makes their magic sky wizard angry, make them all fear you.

    They won't stop unless you deter them with promises of violence, which is what the fucking point of being armed is supposed to do.

    If these fascists dont have fear in the consequences of their decisions or actions, they will continue to erode your rights.

    They won't fucking stop, get it through your scared pacifist head that you need to buy a gun yesterday and carry it proudly at every protest.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You think billionaires are going to care if you have a gun or not?

    Spoiler but if they cared you wouldn’t have the right to a gun anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I dunno, dude. After Luigi killed that one healthcare executive, more and more people with money are tugging their own collars from how easy it is to track, pursue, and execute a billionaire in broad daylight. Im assuming you live under a rock and/or sheltered. Love your user name, btw

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    also the CEO of blackstone was assassinated and they are trying to make it seem like he got the wrong people going after the NFL. The lobby labeled what was on what floors, and which elevators to use. Guy didn't wander aimlessly, he went straight to blackstone, killed the people that got in his way, killed the ceo, then himself. Sure, looks like he had a problem with the NFL, but this was an assassination targeting the ceo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    Maybe the people who should be afraid of concealed handguns are the criminals who might be shot by them. That's the whole point. Defensive gun usage statistics are sparse whether due to people being scared to report what may be seen as a crime on their part, or it not being a tracked statistic in their jurisdiction.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Unless you are in a position where you are aware something worth defending yourself with a gun is happening, and you have enough time to access that gun, and ready yourself, you will likely not get to use it to defend yourself. In fact, if someone, willing to do a stick-up, notices something that tips them off to you having a gun, you become a more desirable target, guns are expensive, and easy to fence. They will have their gun drawn before you really notice they are there, then it is very unlikely trying to defend yourself will do anything but get you shot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

    You'd think that, and then a guy pulls a knife on you and your GF in a walmart parking lot. You have ample time to get to your belt, in fact you have so much time that when you touch the grip you can give him the "you sure?" look without even pulling it, and he can go "sure not" and turn and walk away to rob someone else. Happened to me, went in and bought my bread instead of whatever that guy had in mind.

    Just because sometimes you're in a Kobayashi Maru and phasers won't help doesn't mean you never need phasers or that they never help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    This conversation is not that it NEVER happens, it is addressing why the stats where someone defends themselves with a gun are so low. In practice, defending yourself from armed thieves just gets you killed, or badly injured, the vast majority of the time. If that person had a gun, was standing out initial grabbing distance, and you hadn't pulled your gun yet, you going to touch that grip would have likely just gotten you shot, and left bleeding in that parking lot, as the person ran off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    Debatable. Define "low" and define what we're counting as defensive use of a firearm.

    The lowest estimate for Defensive Gun Use (hereafter referred to as DGU) we have is 100k/yr, done by Harvard and only using verifiable police reports where the defender killed the attacker. That entirely discounts situations like mine, in which the attacker was scared off by the mere presence of a firearm without a shot being fired. 100k/yr is still more than our gun deaths/yr, so if that's "low" then our gun deaths incl homicide, accidents, and suicide are too. And even if it is low, I bet the individuals in question are happy to have had it when they did need it and could use it.

    The other commonly cited estimate is by Gary Kleck and John Lott, and used to be on the CDC's website (not sure if still is, but it can be found.) They estimated between 500k and 3mil DGU/yr, and includes situations like mine. Whether or not you want to discount them, the numbers are still higher than I'd call "low."

    Of course drawing from the drop is bad practice, nobody advises it, but you positioning it as a guarantee is clearly not the case at least 100k times/yr. In real reality, defensive gun use happens all the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    Daniel Webster SC.D.; Jens Ludwig Ph.D. 2000 is a paper just dismantling the methodology, and data, behind the Kleck-Lott study. There are, apparently, a lot of studies picking this one apart, but this is the one I was familiar with before this. Basically they manufactured their results to get the conclusion they wanted. Even the best studies acknowledge from suffering from things like the telescoping effect, significantly. With Kleck and Lott, they often make arguments even their own study refutes, but they are hoping most people never actually read it, especially people who have training on reading academic papers. This article has a pretty good, bullet point style, break down of how they report what their study says vs what it says, and some of the underlying issues of it, and other studies of it's type. Here is a paper discussing how this data is collected, confirmed, and reported, and why things like the National Crime Victimization Survey, always come up so much lower (recently mid 80k range). Basically a study on methodology in this line of research.

    The Harvard number you cite comes from studies that estimate 60-120k DGU's per year. They also caution that going to the higher end requires some very loose interpretation, and inclusion, of data. Their research leads them to the conclusion that MOST reported DGU's stem from escalating fights, from arguments, between two people, and not from someone targeted to be a victim, like a robbery, etc., defending themselves. The majority of DGU's in home held weapons are used to intimidate family, and close friends, rather than third party assailants, and the defenses here are super varied, and often make the person reporting the DGU is the criminal actor. Here is what Harvard has to say about the subject.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Again no matter which you choose to go by, it's hard for me to call it "low." I suppose to a point that's subjective, but even your lowest number, 60k, is on par with our total gun deaths/yr including accidents, homicides, and suicides. So, if it's low than that's low too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    You gloss over the context of where most of that number comes from. It doesn't come defending yourself against some third party who has targeted you for some form of victimization. It comes from people reporting how they used their gun to intimidate someone who they were arguing with, as defending themselves with a gun. Mostly people close to them. Which normal people don't actually consider a valid reason to say they defended themselves from crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    I mean most kidnappings are from family or friends, not strangers. Most rapes are from family and friends, not strangers. It's not outside of the realm of possibility to actually have to defend yourself against family or friends. In fact if it follows the trend it'd be more likely than having to defend yourself from strangers. Hell my friend's house was broken into and he was pistol whipped by a masked dude, and everyone in the house said the same thing, "It was [Name Redacted], I would recognize that voice anywhere." He had been our friend, y'know, until the armed home invasion. None of us had a gun at the time though unfortunatly, but had they one and it was used, it would have been used to defend against said "friend." Not a stranger, a "friend." Another friend in that same neighborhood pulled up to yet another mutual friend to (admittedly) sell him 2oz of weed, and that mutual friend stabbed him. That's two people who were supposedly our "friends." The one that happened to me at walmart was a stranger, but as the data and my empirical evidence suggest, actually having to defend yourself from someone you know is more common, so, yeah I'm not surprised by that and never argued the opposite. My argument was that regardless of one's familiarity with the attacker, DGU happens at a higher rate than "low."

    (Home invader did time in prison for robbing a gas station with a shotgun after this. Idk if he's out now or what, that was the last I heard of him. No clue what became of stabby either, but stabee is doing fine now, took up a trade.)

    Duh "most DGU stems from escalating arguments," if an argument gets heated enough that someone needs to defend themselves however, they still need to defend themselves. Sure "letting the argument get to the point where uncle Steve pulls a knife" is "socially undesirable," but if uncle Steve pulls a knife, he's still pulled a knife. Whether or not you find it "socially undesirable," if it happens then it happens. Not everything that takes place on this earth is "socially desirable." While you should take steps to deescalate the situation, those don't always work, maybe Steve likes meth (which is also socially undesirable, yet prevalent), whatever the reason, if they don't work and Steve pulls the knife, as far as I'm concerned it's more socially undesirable for me to be stabbed, uncle or not.

    Using a gun to intimidate people you're arguing with is called a crime, not defensive gun use. I'd be curious to know if the judges they questioned as to the legality were in the jurisdictions in which the DGU took place, or were they in another location with other requirements like a duty to retreat that doesn't exist everywhere in the states. A judge in WI or NJ could have a different opinion on the same case than a judge from MO or OK, what's legal in the latter is not in the former.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It is called a crime, and if you read further into what harvard talks about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    We read a random sample of defensive gun use news reports for the Gun Violence Archive in 2019. We created a typology of 13 categories, including escalating arguments, drug-related, gang-like, romantic disputes, store robberies, unoccupied vehicle theft, unarmed burglaries, and home invasions. 

    See the more I read the more I question, they don't seem to even understand the threshold for legal use of deadly force, most of these would be technically illegal, even for some where the defense itself was above board.

    If you're the one escalating, that is illegal. Can't legally have guns and drugs at the same time. Gang activity often involves crime while not being illegal itself. Romantic disputes would be legal if the partner immanently threatens your life, then good, otherwise illegal to use gun. Store robberies is above board, as long as they're armed. Using deadly force to protect against unoccupied vehicle theft is illegal, against armed carjacking is legal. Unarmed burglaries would be illegal, you're allowed to use normal force (mace or fists) not deadly force. Home invasions is legal, IF you're in a state with castle doctrine, if you're in a state with a Duty To Retreat law, you're required to surrender the house if possible.

    Their methodology here, to include things that are straight up crimes as "defense," is questionable. Furthermore they seem to be using the same methodology questioned in the Kleck and Lott numbers, phone surveys, but when they do it it's ok:

    We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people. 

    So we'll just ignore that people 12-17 can't legally buy nor carry a gun which would undeniably skew the numbers this way anyway (their parents can buy them one, they still can't carry, and just how common do you think it is for parents to buy their kids guns?) The Kleck and Lott study's voracity is called into question due to the self reported and unverifiable nature of the phone survey, basically "people could be lying." Meanwhile 12-17yos always tell the truth? Horse hockey.

    Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home.  We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime;

    And "intimates" never lie either.

    other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

    Only what like 45% of people even own guns? And of those that do a significant portion just have a shotgun in a safe for hunting. DUH, more people use "what they have." Bet the guy defending himself with a baseball bat wouldn't have turned his nose up at the AR15 beside it, given the opportunity.

    This study is no better than the Kleck and Lott study, and 60k is still more than "low."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    So, if all of these reports are so bad, why believe the 60k number is reasonable?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's the lowest we've got, so I'm using it to give you the "advantage" in your "low" argument, but it's still not "low."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That's why it's concealed. The robber doesn't know who has a gun, unless they're banned, then they're safe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    You might be surprised how often it is easy to tell someone has a concealed gun, if you know what you are looking for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah. With lengthy observation that is NOT going to happen with a robbery. This isn't a heist movie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This just leads to people bringing weapons with them when they commit crimes as they may also need to defend themselves.

    To be fair though if you live in a high crime area there might not be a good answer for how to protect yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • And this is the problem. There isn't a good answer for the victim, at the time. You are unlikely to be in a position to effectively defend yourself, even if you have a gun. The better concealed the gun is, the longer it takes to pull, and the better the response time with the pull, the more likely the thief is to know you have it and act on that knowledge.

    This is why anyone not bullshitting you tells you to do the thing that is least likely to get you killed, and that is just peacefully hand over the stuff, and let them go, then call the cops, and let them do nothing. The real way to reduce crime is to fix systemic ills.

  • source
  • parent
  • It doesn't even take lengthy observation most of the time. Most people are bad at concealing that they have a gun, especially in a way where moving doesn't make it obvious. There is also the issue that the better something is concealed the slower it is to pull, and more obvious it is you are trying to access it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    I used the Forbes article specifically because most will be from what you will call biased sources, but it's an issue where both sides have their own narrative and looking at the data that one side has while discounting the other will get you lies.

    https://ammo.com/research/defensive-gun-use-statistics

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I know that you’re more likely to shoot friends or family with a defensive home gun then any home invaders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    This is accurate, and I used to make it a key part of my own decision-making, until I thought about how bad the - statistically - average American is, at almost everything. I hope I don't need to cite references.

    Ultimately it is, and should largely remain, a personal choice, and I'll note that there are no statistics for the number of (thoughtful) people who believe they should own a gun, and come to realize they were wrong, before disaster. I've known several of these, among many gun owners, known no disasters.

    Gun ownership isn't for everyone. The broad truth of this statistic is important for each individual to know, but not a great rule of thumb for each individual to base an important decision on, if that makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Because you're millions of times more likely to be interacting with family and friends than get broken into. One's a daily occurrence. Also a lot of studies which claim gun ownership is more dangerous to gun owners are deliberately using suicides as part of their numbers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don’t think you can suicide your friends and family.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Good. An armed society is a polite society. Guns are the great equaliser. Larger and stronger people aren’t free to assault smaller and weaker people as they wish. There are societies like Singapore and China where crime is punished so severely that people don’t need personal protection. Sadly, today, that’s not how most of the West is run.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    There is -- as far as I'm aware -- no good data to suggest any of this is true. The severity of punishment has no correlative link let alone causative link to crime rate. As for "politeness" I don't even know how to tackle this, I know Japan and Canada are considered "polite" by public opinion and both have stricter gun regulation than US. And as for the great equalizer claim while I can see that theoretically it could be an equalizer of force that would only be the case if the "weak" were as likely to have a gun as the "strong". If we simply compare women to men -- since women are often physically weaker than men -- we see the gun ownership rates skew heavily towards men. So if anything in that context not only is it not equalizing it is further dividing the gap between the weak and the strong in this context.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Polite isn't the same as fear. Also both your catchphrases are right wing NRA bullshit propaganda which isn't remotely true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    If the government won’t protect citizens they have the right to protect themselves.

    I’m not American and I don’t care how much you like or dislike the NRA. Your comment sounds like authoritarian bootlicking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    When has the government failed to protect your or family members? Dont you think those would be the exception rather than the rule? If you are gearing up for the revolution I can't blame you but I doubt you need to protect yourself in that way unless its from animals or you are a drug dealer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    When has the government failed to protect your or family members?

    Just so I’m clear, you think I’m not allowed to care about others? I’m not even allowed to care about my own safety until my family has been attacked? Wild take. I’m glad society isn’t comprised of people like you. I care about others as well as my family. Most people aren’t murdered and raped and assaulted each year. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about murder and rape and assault.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 2 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    You don’t say…

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    While I agree with the headline...

    I didn't make it past for the first paragraph:

    For as long as there has been a gun-rights movement, the movement’s leaders, industry representatives, and academic supporters have argued that carrying firearms made Americans more secure.

    You can't write about this history without acknowledging it's a relatively recent development.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_at_Cincinnati

    There was never a grass roots "gun rights" movement. Firearm lobbyists took over the NRA in the late 70s. Prior to that every gun organization and even the guy who made the AR15 was against normalized CCW.

    To carry a gun you need to be conscious of the fact that you have a gun. So every conflict happens with that thought. You can't risk a fistfight, because they may get your gun.

    It escalates every single confrontation to potentially deadly.

  • source