sudo22 @ sudo22 @lemmy.world

Posts

16

Comments

166

Joined

2 yr. ago

Lmfao. Got me

Uh, yeah? This shouldn't be a revolation.

A family member of mine concealed carries because she was raped (I know a couple women like this but I know my family memeber's reasoning better since she's family). Do you want to be the one to tell her she's being paranoid? I sure don't.

And if she uses the gun on a would have been rapist, blame the rapist not the person defending themselves.

What?

So you understand the concept and need for self defense. Pepper spray and tasers don't always work. If your assailant is on mind altering substances, pain compliance tools like PS will be inaffective. Tasers won't work (or are less likely to work) on winter clothing.

If you're cool with your odds that's fine, but I'm not willing to risk my life (or more importantly my partner's life) when conceal carry is just as physical easy as PS.

Are you under the impression that America has a violent crime rate of 0 and carriers are just hullicinating the existence of criminals or dangerous animals?

If you're cool with relying on chance that you'll never need it, that's fine I'm not advocating you carry or change your laws. But I prefer to have the right to carry the tools to defend myself even if I'll likely never need them.

Want and need are different. I don't want to shoot a rabid dog that got loose, but I absolutely will before it bites me. Same with any other threats to my bodily safety that I can't escape from.

For those that don't know: Operation Fast and Furious

Did you see the article of the Saskatchewan mass stabbing that had something like 28 casualties? Anecdotes are not indicative of trends.

In a country of 300M you will have outliers. But there are hundreds if not thousands of carriers not hurting a fly for every article like this. Texas alone has 1.7M licensed carriers. So that ratio is actually probably in the hundreds of thousands to 1.

This article is using an overly broad definition of school shooting to make the situation appear as if is worsening in America as opposed to improving.

"The report defines a school shooting as an incident where "a gun is brandished, is fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims, time of day, or day of week."" & "Shootings that occurred during the COVID pandemic "on school property during remote instruction" were within that definition, the report noted."

This is a redicuilusly broad definition that inflates the numbers of shootings without indicating how many victims there are.

Using the study referenced in the article you can clearly see a reduction in the average number of deaths of "youth[s] ages 5-18 at school" from 1992 to 2020. Scroll down to the line graph on the study and filter out suicides (the trend line is less clear there and needs a separate discussion).

The article even sort of acknowledges this downward trend when it says "interpret these data with caution" given that latest figures are "outliers compared to prior years.""

I'm not saying this to pretend everything is fine and nothing needs to change. No its the opposite, something IS reducing the number of deaths and we need to isolate what it is and do it more. And its not gun control laws getting tighter. 1994 saw the advant for the American Assault Weapon ban and gun laws were arguably the tightest they've ever been in the US. Gun laws in the nation have only loosened since then such as: Permit-less concealled carry is in 26/50 states, all states are now shall issue CCL, and the AWB ended.

Criminals don't open carry. If you see a gun holstered on someone, they are explicitly showing you they are not a threat to you unless you become a threat to them. If they wanted to harm you, why would they show their hand before making a move.

Lethal crimes of passion are far more rare than you're making them out. Carrying a pocket knife is legal in Canada no? Do you feel you're in constant danger of being stab by any random angry stranger? Cars are common in Canada, do you flinch at every intersection because you aren't sure if someone had a bad day and wants to run someone over randomly? No of course not, because the overwhelming majority of people don't want to hurt anyone

No youre right, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part.

I keep a very close eye on defensive gun legality and cases (Armed Attorneys is a great Youtube channel to start with if you're interested). You're right there are many things that can go wrong. I do my best to stay educated on the pitfalls others run into, I pay for carry insurance as well to help with legal fees if I ever do need to use it.

Exactly, that's why she should have made murder illegal a long time ago instead so the murders stop without the courts ruling it unconstitutional forhead touch x2

Billionaires are people too and dont deserve death just a bad comme.... Pfffffff I'm just kidding sharpen the blade.

I don't feel like writing an essay to address all your points, I don't have the time right now I'm sorry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact the highest law (and most state constitutions) of the land gives us the inalienable right to arms. Period. (And no "well regulated" does not mean legal regulations)

I believe we would be far better off dealing with the root of violence, like many European countries have done but gun control advocates like to only focus on gun control laws. People with financial, health, reproductive, and employment security don't commit violent crimes. Things like labor protections, maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation time, physical and mental healthcare that won't bankrupt you are some of the things that dramatically reduce all violent crime regardless of the tool used.

Look at violent crimes in the US compared to the UK for things like murder using only the human body (ie kicks, punches, strangulation, etc), its lower per 100k in the UK and many other European countries. There's no body control laws restricting how strong or trained your body can be, yet its lower. Its because people who's needs are actually met don't need to turn to or are driven to crime, our social protections in the USA suck ass and need to be fixed.

Yes. You're right, these people are vetted by the state and authorized because they passed BG checks and firearms proficiency tests. Which is why a law targeting this group is dumb (beyond just being unconstitutional).

I don't see it as paranoid. I totally agree with you its unlikely I'll ever need it, but it costs me nothing to concealed carry where I can. Worst case my pants are slightly less comfortable, best case I save a life.

My partner is disabled and is of a very small stature which means I'm a far faster and more accurate shot so I carry when its the 2 of us. If theyre alone they carry a lower power pistol so they can handle using it.

You can ignore that source if you want, there are plenty others. But the fact remains that well regulated does not give the government the right to regulate arms.

Ignoring the metaphor cause yeesh.

But "well regualted" means and always meant something to the tune of well trained and supplied. "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. ". And more importantly " Right of the people " and "Shall not be infringed" are clear and obvious.

Crime happens everywhere, some places more then others sure. But I prefer to have the right to the tools to protect myself, rather than just hope that I'll never need them.

Ah gotcha. Its about wanting to be safe. Violence happens unfortunately, so I concealed carry to give me the ability to defend myself (and more importantly my partner) if I ever am faced with that.