• shades@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    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.

    SocialistRA.org

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

    • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 hours ago

            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.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 hours ago

                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.

                • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 hours ago

                  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.

    • 1ns1p1d@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      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.

        • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 hours ago

          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.

        • 1ns1p1d@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          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.

          • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 hours ago

            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.

            • Doomsider@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 hours ago

              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.

              • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 hours ago

                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.

                • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  Same and is clear 95% are not gun nutters.

                  Reality is a harsh mistress and your gun rhetoric is absolute garbage.

            • 1ns1p1d@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              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!

              • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 hours ago

                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.

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Is this a serious question?

        Do you believe armed protesters are easier or more difficult to suppress?

        • naught101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 hours ago

          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.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 hours ago

      My I introduce you to a revolutionary new product that helps PID in a dark house:

      2371

      It’s called the “flishlight.” They’re pretty nifty!

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.”

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            33 minutes ago

            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.

      • oatscoop@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        But don’t you know statistically you’re more likely to shoot yourself or a family member!!!111111 Sure, those statistics include mentally unstable people. It includes some of the dumbest people you could imagine, and people that intentionally committed murder and lied about the circumstances to avoid punishment.

        But everyone knows statistics derived from an incredibly diverse population determines individual outcomes – that’s just science!

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      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.

      • kworpy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 hours ago

        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.

      • Demdaru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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.

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          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.

          • nomous@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 hours ago

            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.

      • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

      • Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        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?

    • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

      • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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.

      • DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        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.

        • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 hours ago

          “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.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Ah yes. The true red blooded American solution; the only way to solve a serious problem is to escalate it out of proportion.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 hours ago

      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.

    • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 hours ago

      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.

      • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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.

        • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 hours ago

          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.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 hours ago

            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.

      • MonkeyDatabase@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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.

        • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 hours ago

          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?

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 hours ago

            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.

            • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              18 hours ago

              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”.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                18 hours ago

                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.

                • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  16 hours ago

                  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.

              • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                18 hours ago

                If you’re arguing that both the murderer and murder victims “suck” maybe you need to rethink your priorities…

    • Barsukis@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 hours ago

      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

        • Barsukis@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 hours ago

          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

    • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 hours ago

      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

      • socsa@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 hours ago

        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.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 hours ago

      After not being able to find a job with a 401(k), and knowing that the incoming administration is gonna gut social security… Yup.

  • BioMyth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

  • Okokimup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.”

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 hours ago

      As someone seriously considering their first firearm purchase, my main thought is “I hope this is a gigantic waste of time and money”.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        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.)

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            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.)

      • redisdead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        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.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 hours ago

          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.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 hours ago

          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”.

          • redisdead@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Yes it does, there’s many studies across all the USA. It’s one of the most studied thing ever.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 hours ago

              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.

    • BioMyth@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      People like to think that because they own a gun, if they ever got to use it they would be John Wick.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          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.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 hours ago

          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.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 hours ago

            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.”

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          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.