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.
Thanks for reminding me of Cyanide and Happiness’ Guns short.
Republicans really be hating different sexualities when they themselves are ammo-sexuals
And in some places the ‘h’ is silent 😉
'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
Please, Please, Please let the second continuation of this comic be him hearing a doorbell, grabbing some of his guns, then looking through the door’s peep hole to see two Mormon’s in suits holding a Bible.
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.
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 retards.
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 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 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 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. What is 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.
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.
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 is clear 95% are not gun nutters.
Reality is a harsh mistress and your gun rhetoric is absolute garbage.
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).
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.
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?
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.
You sound like a responsible gun owner and not a gun nut.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
opens closet
finds box with “Retirement Policy” written on it
yep, safe and sound
After not being able to find a job with a 401(k), and knowing that the incoming administration is gonna gut social security… Yup.
Tons of jobs with joke-ass 401ks they wear in their sleeve that they don’t match or give any incentive whatsoever for, and hope you’ll forget about when you leave.
When my company told us they didn’t match, I asked why bother, then found out $25 was mandatory. Hell.
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.
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
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.
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.
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…
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
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.
facts.
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)
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.
“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.
Ah yes. The true red blooded American solution; the only way to solve a serious problem is to escalate it out of proportion.
Why is arming yourself in self defense escalating it out of proption when leftists do it?
*When anyone does it.
The solution to there being too many guns is to remove the guns. Not add more.
Cool, well that’s definitely not an option now that we voted in a right wing fascist.
Maybe once leftists get in charge again we can try passing reasonable gun laws again
Untill then there’s lots of schools.
“preferably a minority”
“… but if you can’t, please make sure they enter unarmed so I can shoot them safely”
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.
Sounds like you have an obsession with guns
That is the joke
That’s really what it comes down to.
These people want an “excuse” to murder someone.
Yes. Thankfully not everyone who owns a gun is like these weirdos though.
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.
