151–160 of 1001 posts
The entire police force can do nothing for you on the phone. I think it is the reductions in police that are convincing more women to purchase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I guess you don't have fire extinguishers in your house, car or place of work, only buy car liability insurance because it's the law, or home insurance because it's required by your mortgage holder? No insurance for your personal property? I've owned guns for self protection in the same 40+ years and have never needed them for self-protection, but I also haven't needed any of the other above forms of insurance exc…
Not a great comparison. I've never heard of a toddler accidentally murdering someone with a fire extinguisher, yet that's an everyday occurrence with guns.
There's something admirable about the idea that a government would not take away all the guns. The idea that people should not have to give up all of their ability to fight. The idea that people should not be entirely dependent on police for their defense. And the idea that physically weaker people (often women) can defend themselves against the strong. Does this idea work? Surprisingly well. If you had to guess the…
> But the U.S. murder rate is not all that remarkable, really The US is at 4.96/100,000 for 2012. For reference, Angola is better at 4.85. Bulgaria and Romania, the poorest countries in the EU, are at 1.3. France is at 1.2. If by not remarkable you mean 3 as bad as other developed countries, sure. The numbers are only for intentional homicide, not even counting accidents and suicides which are also made worse by the…
I'll chalk this up to someone who simultaneously A) doesn't own firearms and B) is not a student of history.
Call me when a F-22 or RQ-1 can take a door in the middle of the night. Otherwise, it is fancy waiting game of finding out who the aerial operators are, and slaughtering their family.
Everyone should own a gun, and most more than 1. If we were to maintain public education (which... just no, please) gun education should be standard.
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still, one of the first signs of a society approaching tyranny is the government cracking down on guns. So if nothing else, it serves as a great canary in the mine.
That is not actually true historically. That is popular talking point. On the other hand, quite a few authoritarian tyrannical movements started by arming themselves and taking it on themselves to get power. Both nazi and communists started as private citizens arming themselves and causing fights in the streets or robbing people.
This mirrors what I've seen personally. I shoot quite a bit, and had a lot of friends reach out about advice on buying a first gun. Fears were largely around the general civil unrest and BLM rioting last summer. I've heard several women say they don't feel safe being out alone anymore, and felt the need to protect themselves. I've heard a few mothers voice concerns about protecting children as well. I always coach pe…
Have there been any documented cases of BLM indiscriminately attacking women or children? This seems weird to me.
I've taken gun safety courses run by local police, and every time they told us that it's ideal to not have a gun in your house at all because they see more accidental shootings than thwarted break-ins. This is of course, anecdotal, and I'm sure they prefer fewer citizens to have guns... so it might be BS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The murder rate varies widely by state/area. Chicago's murder rate is significantly higher than its suburbs. The murder rate in the town (37k residents) I live in (in the south) is effectively zero. I wouldn't doubt that all of my neighbors around me (most of us are originally from a northern state) have guns and we've managed not to kill each other. Do you think the French revolution didn't require violence?
I think the person meant contemporary France.
There's something admirable about the idea that a government would not take away all the guns. The idea that people should not have to give up all of their ability to fight. The idea that people should not be entirely dependent on police for their defense. And the idea that physically weaker people (often women) can defend themselves against the strong. Does this idea work? Surprisingly well. If you had to guess the…
I agree with most of your post. One small quibble though: > There's something admirable about the idea that a government would not take away all the guns. The whole point is that the government Can Not take away guns, not that they "would not". Inalienable rights preceed government, they are not granted by it. In fact, the government is supposed to exist to safe guard them. I think that's an important philosophical p…
That's a nice ideal, but in reality governments can do and take away whatever they want, and a guarantee that they won't take away your "inalienable" rights is only as good as the system built around that government, and the willingness of its people to fight (physically or legally) for their rights.
exceptions to this rule, especially in the american south, are civil rights leaders and similar political activists. Martin Luther King preached non-violent protest but owned guns for protecting his home against the very real threat of violent racists. (there's some interesting writing about this if you look it up. google something like "martin luther king guns malcolm x")
the bigger risk is accidentally killing somebody with a gun, like an "intruder" that is actually somebody you know. or a kid accidentally firing the gun and killing themselves or somebody else, or somebody intentionally killing themselves.
edit: added "but" in front of dependent clause "for self defense"