Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Culise]

On the other hand a machete would be better at disabling (pretty much any slash is going to disable a major muscle group) even if it'd be worse at actually killing (shallower wounds).

And yeah, the intruder will definitely have an edge. He can shoot as soon as he sees you, while you need a moment to confirm it's not one of your family members.

...it's probably really awful that my first thought was that this isn't a selling point for some folk.  If the intruder survives, you have to defend yourself in both criminal and civil cases, because in addition to the criminal investigation surrounding reasonable use of force (depending on jurisdiction), the intruder can sue you for injuries.  If the intruder dies, well, dead people find it a bit harder to file a lawsuit.

[Leafsnail]

Journalist Owen Jones stormed off a live newspaper review on Sky News after the show's presenter refused to describe the Orlando nightclub shooting as an attack on gay people.
Lol
For reference, Sky news were one of the people who touted the progressive line that Hebdo were assholes who provoked their own slaughter

This is a dishonest way to characterise that exchange. Sky News is a right-leaning channel owned by Fox News, and they were interviewing a left-wing journalist. They wanted to play down the homophobic angle to focus on religious motivations (presumably because a lot of their viewers are also homophobic and they don't want to confront that).

[hector13]

On the other hand a machete would be better at disabling (pretty much any slash is going to disable a major muscle group) even if it'd be worse at actually killing (shallower wounds).

And yeah, the intruder will definitely have an edge. He can shoot as soon as he sees you, while you need a moment to confirm it's not one of your family members.

...it's probably really awful that my first thought was that this isn't a selling point for some folk.  If the intruder survives, you have to defend yourself in both criminal and civil cases, because in addition to the criminal investigation surrounding reasonable use of force (depending on jurisdiction), the intruder can sue you for injuries.  If the intruder dies, well, dead people find it a bit harder to file a lawsuit.

I thought 'murricans were allowed to use any force to defend their property and/or family?

[Reelya]

Yep, and most people buying a gun for self defence are gonna be people who can't handle themselves physically, let alone a much fitter and stronger intruder. Gun levels that field considerably

Death by your own gun exceeds death by a strangers gun by quite a margin in the USA. If you introduce guns into a place that has very little gun crime, almost the complete bulk of the impact will be domestic shootings, suicides, or the gun being stolen during a break-in. We're not talking conjecture here or anecdotes, or describing hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

The failures of others are not a legitimate reason to leave us all defenseless.

Yeah but the cases where guns protected someone from a home invasion in the USA are astronomically rare. Meanwhile gun ownership increases the odds of someone in your family being killed by homicide or suicide by a factor of 2-3. Plus accidental death with guns.

Sure there are some arguments for having a gun, but they're highly illogical and rely on extremely rare things happening. Death by home invasion is listed as about a likelihood of 1 in 3 million according to the stats I read, and I'm guessing that the sheer bulk of those were related to drug dealing. Maybe if you're ripping off or undercutting drug cartels, having a gun would make sense. Otherwise, gun suicides are about 200 times more common than the entire bulk of home-invasion deaths. From e.g. the Israeli experience, disallowing soldiers from taking guns home on weekends reduced the total national suicide rate by 40%. Another way of saying that is that having "weekend guns" in houses with young people (IDF members) increased the national suicide rate by 67% from what it would be without guns. If you have a gun all the time, then these stats back up the "2 to 3 times" likelihood of a suicide in your household.

Plus there's state by state evidence that gun restrictions do decrease the total homicides. When you say the "right to have a gun" that includes everyone, so you not only have to factor in the effects on yourself of your gun (which the gun activists can't even get to agree with real stats), but the effects on yourself of every other noob out there also having a gun.

[Rolan7]

Tricky part is that the sense of security isn't false...  If they really know how to use the gun properly.  And depending on the situation.

Statistically, a lot of people think they they're fit to use a gun safely, but it doesn't work out.  Self awareness is tough.

On the other hand a machete would be better at disabling (pretty much any slash is going to disable a major muscle group) even if it'd be worse at actually killing (shallower wounds).

And yeah, the intruder will definitely have an edge. He can shoot as soon as he sees you, while you need a moment to confirm it's not one of your family members.

...it's probably really awful that my first thought was that this isn't a selling point for some folk.  If the intruder survives, you have to defend yourself in both criminal and civil cases, because in addition to the criminal investigation surrounding reasonable use of force (depending on jurisdiction), the intruder can sue you for injuries.  If the intruder dies, well, dead people find it a bit harder to file a lawsuit.

I thought 'murricans were allowed to use any force to defend their property and/or family?

We're not allowed to, like, execute a wounded person.  And the laws on what force is allowed differ from state to state.

[nenjin]

The law is different state to state. In Texas, you can absolutely shoot someone to protect your property, whether that's your house or your car. But I know that's not the law in several other states. They reserve that right only to defend yourself or another living thing.

[Twi]

For magical sky unicorns of some sort, since the FBI is explicitly incapable of indicting anyone. Presumably talking about the email thing, though, and forgetting that the FBI can't actually do anything except hand off evidence with a recommendation attached.

AFAIK, the FBI tries to indict important people, but they have to answer to the DOJ, and their political masters are generally not interested.

They want to indict even the important ham sandwiches, but the bosses say no.

[Loud Whispers]

1) Yeah, that famous progressive line that Hebdo deserved what it got...

No, it's very clever. They didn't deserve what they got, they just provoked their attack

2) Source on that? To me, it seems the people buying guns for self-defense are the people that like guns and violences.

Source on what seems to you? Cos the gun markets are big and varied
Main ones are Police, Hobbyist, Hunting, Self Defence, Women and Douchebag, and that's usually how they market them

Death by your own gun exceeds death by a strangers gun by quite a margin in the USA. If you introduce guns into a place that has very little gun crime, almost the complete bulk of the impact will be domestic shootings, suicides, or the gun being stolen during a break-in. We're not talking conjecture here or anecdotes, or describing hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

Number of people defending themselves with guns far exceeds all of them yearly
Not talking conjecture or anecdotes, or hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

SThis is a dishonest way to characterise that exchange. Sky News is a right-leaning channel owned by Fox News, and they were interviewing a left-wing journalist. They wanted to play down the homophobic angle to focus on religious motivations (presumably because a lot of their viewers are also homophobic and they don't want to confront that).

Sky news is owned by Sky PLC, it's distributed worldwide by Fox Networks Group - Fox News is one channel on the network, and Fox News is run by a Republican media consultant. Meanwhile Sky News is split between focusing on sports, or progressive issues. At least when it's not political season. Sky News is run by John Ryley, who's a pretty cool guy (even if he looks like a dork at times), and they're notable for doing stuff like diversity crews (but not shit) and they did a special a while back where for women's day they did an all female broadcast all day. I don't know if feminism and diversity are not progressive to you, but to most all else it is
More infamously they refused to show the Hebdo cover and apologised for any viewers offended lol
Sky don't really weigh in on economic issues, but they are most definitely progressive

[Reelya]

Tricky part is that the sense of security isn't false...  If they really know how to use the gun properly.  And depending on the situation.

Statistically, a lot of people think they they're fit to use a gun safely, but it doesn't work out.  Self awareness is tough.

Yeah, there was a case I just read about a couple who got a gun in case of the Ferguson riots affecting them. In their car, the woman was handling the gun and yelling about being ready for them, this distracted her husband, he clipped the car in front, which caused the gun to discharge and kill the wife.

But there's also another cause of death, which is people who shoot their guns in the air for fun, or during 4th of July / New Years Eve celebrations. Those bullets have to come down somewhere, and they do kill people. Overall, the stats of being killed by a stray bullet in the USA have been calculated as 1 in 5 million. But coincidentally, the chance of being killed in a home invasion was also listed as a 1 in 5 million chance on other articles. It doesn't matter how responsible you are with your gun if you can die from a stray bullet from some asshat out there: you're not safer. And I'm wondering about the narrative of the typical robber who shoots a homeowner during a burglary. The reason a burglar carries a gun is the same as you do, self defense just in case the homeowner comes at them with a gun or other weapon. Ideally, a burglar doesn't want to see any humans at all. The most likely scenario is that a homeowner confronts a burglar with a weapon, which spooks the criminal, thus causing them to fire their weapon. In those cases it comes down to a quick-draw competition, which your banking on you being faster at, no matter how well secure your firearm to prevent misuse (which also reduces the chance that you'll have it ready in a pinch btw).

[Erkki]

Yep, and most people buying a gun for self defence are gonna be people who can't handle themselves physically, let alone a much fitter and stronger intruder. Gun levels that field considerably

Death by your own gun exceeds death by a strangers gun by quite a margin in the USA. If you introduce guns into a place that has very little gun crime, almost the complete bulk of the impact will be domestic shootings, suicides, or the gun being stolen during a break-in. We're not talking conjecture here or anecdotes, or describing hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

Is suicide illegal in the US? If not, suicides by guns dont really count as gun crime do they?

edit: PS. I own guns for hunting and range shooting. Its fun and keeps one practiced. I havent yet really got into the reservist stuff, maybe next year.

[Shadowlord]

Yep, and most people buying a gun for self defence are gonna be people who can't handle themselves physically, let alone a much fitter and stronger intruder. Gun levels that field considerably

Death by your own gun exceeds death by a strangers gun by quite a margin in the USA. If you introduce guns into a place that has very little gun crime, almost the complete bulk of the impact will be domestic shootings, suicides, or the gun being stolen during a break-in. We're not talking conjecture here or anecdotes, or describing hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

Is suicide illegal in the US? If not, suicides by guns dont really count as gun crime do they?

What difference does it make? They're still dead, and guns are a far more effective, and easier to acquire, means of suicide than most other methods. The only thing I can think of that would be as effective would be acquiring fentanyl or heroin or etc and overdosing on it intentionally, and even then, the cops can bring you back if they're fast enough (if they have narcan).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That gets into a whole different kettle of fish frankly. The "should people be allowed to kill themselves" kettle.

[Criptfeind]

The view that all human death is equally bad is pretty common, especially around here. But it's by far the only world view. I'm not sure if such large differences in viewpoint are reconcilable at all.

[Reelya]

Is suicide illegal in the US? If not, suicides by guns dont really count as gun crime do they?

Whether or not suicide is "gun crime" or not is a pretty ridiculous technicality. Having a gun around means someone in your family is much more likely to be dead by gunshot. Whether that death is "legal" or not is frankly an insane point to make.

Death by your own gun exceeds death by a strangers gun by quite a margin in the USA. If you introduce guns into a place that has very little gun crime, almost the complete bulk of the impact will be domestic shootings, suicides, or the gun being stolen during a break-in. We're not talking conjecture here or anecdotes, or describing hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

Number of people defending themselves with guns far exceeds all of them yearly
Not talking conjecture or anecdotes, or hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

Using guns as a threat can facilitate just as many crimes as they prevent. And the balance of evidence is that people who own guns are killed by a gun more often than non-owners. So, they are a questionable deterrent.

[Erkki]

Yep, and most people buying a gun for self defence are gonna be people who can't handle themselves physically, let alone a much fitter and stronger intruder. Gun levels that field considerably

Death by your own gun exceeds death by a strangers gun by quite a margin in the USA. If you introduce guns into a place that has very little gun crime, almost the complete bulk of the impact will be domestic shootings, suicides, or the gun being stolen during a break-in. We're not talking conjecture here or anecdotes, or describing hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

Is suicide illegal in the US? If not, suicides by guns dont really count as gun crime do they?

What difference does it make? They're still dead, and guns are a far more effective, and easier to acquire, means of suicide than most other methods. The only thing I can think of that would be as effective would be acquiring fentanyl or heroin or etc and overdosing on it intentionally, and even then, the cops can bring you back if they're fast enough (if they have narcan).

Theres a whole lot of difference between gun suicides and gun homicides.

Around here, there are on average 15 gun homicides a year, but over 100 gun suicides. Gun homicides are about 10 % of all homicides, and a typical gun homicide is committed with an illegally acquired gun while both the victim and the shooter are drunk.

Then all gun deaths are compared to all homicides and used as an argument to further gun possession restrictions as is happening in EU right now. The commission wants to basically ban all detachable magazine semi autos and register every single magazine in the union. A union that already likely has over a million black market full auto weapons left from the Warsaw Pact. Madness.

I personally am of the opinion that a person should be able to end his\her life, but help for issues, mental or other, should be as readily available as possible. An individual can be IMHO denied from acquiring firearms if deemed mentally unstable / other, but freedoms of the entire population shouldn't be limited. Even guns are just tools.

Is suicide illegal in the US? If not, suicides by guns dont really count as gun crime do they?

Whether or not suicide is "gun crime" or not is a pretty ridiculous technicality. Having a gun around means someone in your family is much more likely to be dead by gunshot. Whether that death is "legal" or not is frankly an insane point to make.

Death by your own gun exceeds death by a strangers gun by quite a margin in the USA. If you introduce guns into a place that has very little gun crime, almost the complete bulk of the impact will be domestic shootings, suicides, or the gun being stolen during a break-in. We're not talking conjecture here or anecdotes, or describing hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

Number of people defending themselves with guns far exceeds all of them yearly
Not talking conjecture or anecdotes, or hypothetical scenarios here, just the raw data.

But more people are dead in total because of firearm availability. People in a gun culture defend themselves with weapons of violence because that culture demands it. Everyone is less safe as a result. If you had some evidence that less people actually died because of this "deterrent" of owning a gun, then that would be something. But gun ownership is positively correlated with dying from gunshot.

Where do you draw the line? Are knives okay, swords? Bows? Maybe some certain kind(s) of firearm? At what point does a firearm become exceedingly powerful, how is it defined?