• Firearms sales have dropped since the election - but have risen for minorities and LGBT people
    137 replies, posted
I find calling this positive weird, kind of like saying that getting chemotherapy is good. It's just something necessary and sad to deal with a shitty problem [QUOTE=KillRay;51926934]I always just wonder how often the defending party having a gun actually helps in some situations. Having something to defend yourself is good, but like the guy shot in the face while driving last week: how often will you be able to draw your own gun to defend yourself? Attacked from behind, approached with someone already drawn, etc. Doesn't seem to give you good chances[/QUOTE] I'm not 100% sure about home-defense. But when it comes to protecting yourself in public from what I've researched it really isn't that beneficial at all. And most of the time actually, when a CC holder stops a crime, it actually turns out to be an undercover/off-duty cop. Which is why I'm in a weird state of being pro-gun. I loathe most of the pro arguments and con arguments and disregard most of them as just bullshit, but my default position is that if you want to take something away you need a good reason.
[QUOTE=KillRay;51926934]I always just wonder how often the defending party having a gun actually helps in some situations. Having something to defend yourself is good, but like the guy shot in the face while driving last week: how often will you be able to draw your own gun to defend yourself? Attacked from behind, approached with someone already drawn, etc. Doesn't seem to give you good chances[/QUOTE] I guess the argument is that it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Any chance of self-preservation is better than no chance.
[QUOTE=KillRay;51926934]I always just wonder how often the defending party having a gun actually helps in some situations. Having something to defend yourself is good, but like the guy shot in the face while driving last week: how often will you be able to draw your own gun to defend yourself? Attacked from behind, approached with someone already drawn, etc. Doesn't seem to give you good chances[/QUOTE] If you're attacked from behind with a firearm, you never stood a chance, with or without. If you're already drawn on, it's not advisable unless you have training and an opportunity to break their OODA loop, they'll always be able to start shooting before you finish your draw. There's precious few chances you'll have for a firearm on firearm crime, but it's still better to go down shooting than to go down without a hope in hell. Firearms are also applicable in weapon violence other than guns, though - it's perfectly legal in the vast majority of places in the US to, say, shoot someone who's threatening you with a baseball bat, or a knife, or trying to mow you down with a car, etc etc. The burden of lethal force is an imminent threat of grievous bodily injury or death and the capability of the aggressor to carry it out, regardless of how they're going to do it or what they're using.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51926944]I guess the argument is that it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Any chance of self-preservation is better than no chance.[/QUOTE] That can be somewhat debatable actually, as a gun you own can still be a hazard to yourself in one way or another, even if you're a good practitioner of gun safety.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;51927014]That can be somewhat debatable actually, as a gun you own can still be a hazard to yourself in one way or another, even if you're a good practitioner of gun safety.[/QUOTE] How
[QUOTE=paindoc;51926559]I don't think that's what a lot of us think. For me, I've been around guns all my life. Primarily for target shooting and farm usage, things like varmint hunting or badger killing. I've got a 12ga and 30-06 myself, but those aren't ideal for self defense ofc. When most of the gun violence in the US is with handguns, I can't help but want better control around the selling of handguns. I'd be willing to submit to longer waiting periods, or more thorough background checks. I'm not mocking the second amendment: I'm saying that the constitution is a living document, and the second amendment is pretty damn dated. There are ways we can make everyone safer without destroying the spirit of the second amendment.[/QUOTE] I did my best not to lump everyone together as it is a discussion with a lot of different positions - the people I described certainly exist but are not wholly representative of any particular demographic or group, and I don't mean to paint it as though there are no lucid or reasonable opinions on any particular side. [QUOTE=paindoc;51926559]Also, how is this going to change a lot of stances on gun control when issues with lack of gun control may be causing the need for self defense firearms in the first place?[/quote] I could see several ways - the overwhelming majority of people who might now be considering the purchase of a gun despite past opposition will presumably be doing their shopping at a gun store, so if they are of the mindset that buying a gun in America is as easy as swinging by Wal-Mart (which is not an exaggeration of opinions I have heard) they will get a much better understanding of laws as they exist now. Guns are already pretty significantly controlled, and a lot of work goes into a transfer - paperwork, background checks, exclusionary clauses, and more depending on where a buyer lives. Ideally people will change the question in their mind from "how should we tighten gun control?" to "why isn't all this gun control reducing crime?" and start demanding their representatives address issues like poverty, education, and healthcare instead of taking a hardline stance on gun control to win their re-election. A lot of people consider statistics on deaths involving a gun to be the final word on the safety of owning one - doctors ask their patients if they own guns because, tautologically, the presence of a gun is a statistically significant factor in gun-related deaths. If a gun sits in your dresser or your closet (or, please, a safe) and doesn't kill anyone for a good long while, it becomes apparent that individual responsibility is the biggest and quite possibly only meaningful factor in how safe private gun ownership is. It's also not unreasonable to think that people who put the time into learning and practicing with a newly acquired firearm are just going to come to enjoy the experience and meet new friends that put a face on what otherwise might be perceived as an abstract impersonal opposition. The single best hope for gun rights advocates is to just be decent, friendly, polite people instead of facilitating their own vilification by alienating newcomers or being belligerent with people who hold different ideas. Hopefully the people who can keep an open mind and help other people have positive experiences outnumber those who refuse to.
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51926887]But do you actively fear for your life when you leave the house without a first aid kit? That's the point I'm trying to get across. You shouldn't have to live in fear if you don't own a gun. LGBT people like my self shouldn't need a gun to feel safe.[/QUOTE] Are we considering feelings to be relevant over stats? Because while LGBTQs might feel unsafe, the reality is that they arent any more or less safe than they were a year ago. Any increase in targetted, verifiable, life threatening violence against them is marginal. I'm not saying theyre not justified in owning and carrying a firearm, I'm of the opinion that its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I'm just saying that seeing this as negative because of feelings is pretty silly.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51927081]Are we considering feelings to be relevant over stats? Because while LGBTQs might feel unsafe, the reality is that they arent any more or less safe than they were a year ago. Any increase in targetted, verifiable, life threatening violence against them is marginal. I'm not saying theyre not justified in owning and carrying a firearm, I'm of the opinion that its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I'm just saying that seeing this as negative because of feelings is pretty silly.[/QUOTE] hate crime and hate groups are increasing rapidly since Trump was elected, so... statistically, yes, we are less safe, because the people who would previously be unwilling to commit violence against us are now galvanized by what they perceive as a collective uptick in acceptance of bigotry.
[QUOTE=1239the;51927164]hate crime and hate groups are increasing rapidly since Trump was elected, so... statistically, yes, we are less safe, because the people who would previously be unwilling to commit violence against us are now galvanized by what they perceive as a collective uptick in acceptance of bigotry.[/QUOTE] Like I just said, if the increase is there its completely marginal. Dont confuse increased news reports with increased violence.
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51926822]Yeah it sure is awesome that a large handful of minorities feel so safe in this country that they feel they need to own guns to protect themselves from bigots. So awesome. 100% what the founding fathers wanted out of the 2nd Amendment right here.. /s[/QUOTE] jesus christ why don't people understand that we are encouraging the defense of these individuals, not the situation that makes them feel the need for defence [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=KillRay;51926934]I always just wonder how often the defending party having a gun actually helps in some situations. Having something to defend yourself is good, but like the guy shot in the face while driving last week: how often will you be able to draw your own gun to defend yourself? Attacked from behind, approached with someone already drawn, etc. Doesn't seem to give you good chances[/QUOTE] Some relevant material: [t]http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GUNS-AND-CRIME-PREVENTION-Injury-Rates-by-Self-Protection-Method.png[/t] Source: [url]https://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/[/url] (Admittedly pretty pro-gun, but seems to try to be objective)
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51926567]I would say that you're not ready for the responsibility yet then. You are NEVER supposed to pull your weapon unless you are ready to kill the person to stop the threat to your life.[/QUOTE] It's you who should never have a gun. When I was in the police academy, we were schooled in a concept called the 'use of force continuum'. The more resistant and dangerous a suspect is, the more force is required to get them under control, and never should more force than is absolutely necessary be used. This includes, as an extreme, drawing your weapon in a situation when you're seriously outnumbered in an attempt to force compliance. Naturally, when you point a loaded firearm at someone, even with the safety engaged, you're risking a freak accident, an accidental discharge. So it's strictly a second-to-last option. But if your first reaction upon drawing a gun is to squeeze the trigger, that seems incredibly irresponsible and dangerous, unless you're in imminent danger.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51927176]Like I just said, if the increase is there its completely marginal. Dont confuse increased news reports with increased violence.[/QUOTE] Why did you assert that it's marginal then We can't tell at this stage whether they really have or haven't. Just a small nitpick I guess tho
[QUOTE=archangel125;51927334]But if your first reaction upon drawing a gun is to squeeze the trigger, that seems incredibly irresponsible and dangerous.[/QUOTE] I should defer to your opinion here, but your average civilian is not beholden to rational behavior in the way an officer of the law is, and certainly does not have the same level of discretion in their use of force. As a civilian, if you are drawing your gun for any reason other than to fire it, you should not be drawing the gun.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51927467]I should defer to your opinion here, but your average civilian is not beholden to rational behavior in the way an officer of the law is, and certainly does not have the same level of discretion in their use of force. As a civilian, if you are drawing your gun for any reason other than to fire it, you should not be drawing the gun.[/QUOTE] Maybe so. I personally believe that every civilian who wishes to own and carry a gun should require firearms and use of force-related training and certification no less extreme than that required of LEOs, but that's just me. Using the common driver's license argument, people are not certified to operate a motor vehicle on public streets until they demonstrate they can handle one responsibly. Why not firearms, too?
Being [i]afraid[/i] and [i]being in danger[/i] are two different things. We Americans were so afraid after 9/11, for example, that we allowed some truly awful measures to be taken to protect our safety -- which was never actually in danger. I think it's good that minorities and LGBT people -- who tend to be democrats -- are purchasing guns. Maybe now they'll see the inherent value in allowing the populace to have guns and reasonable education surrounding them. I don't think it's good that they think they need a gun -- people being scared is never good -- but just because they think they need one doesn't mean they actually do. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;51927475]Maybe so. I personally believe that every civilian who wishes to own and carry a gun should require firearms and use of force-related training and certification no less extreme than that required of LEOs, but that's just me. Using the common driver's license argument, people are not certified to operate a motor vehicle on public streets until they demonstrate they can handle one responsibly. Why not firearms, too?[/QUOTE] Because being trained to use a firearm on a gun range is completely different from actually using a firearm in a situation where you feel your life is in danger. People in that situation tend to keep shooting until they can't anymore. They simply should not draw their gun unless they're willing to kill what they're pointing it at.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51927334]It's you who should never have a gun. When I was in the police academy, we were schooled in a concept called the 'use of force continuum'. The more resistant and dangerous a suspect is, the more force is required to get them under control, and never should more force than is absolutely necessary be used. This includes, as an extreme, drawing your weapon in a situation when you're seriously outnumbered in an attempt to force compliance. Naturally, when you point a loaded firearm at someone, even with the safety engaged, you're risking a freak accident, an accidental discharge. So it's strictly a second-to-last option. But if your first reaction upon drawing a gun is to squeeze the trigger, that seems incredibly irresponsible and dangerous, unless you're in imminent danger.[/QUOTE] The reason your first reaction upon drawing a gun is to squeeze the trigger is because you are ONLY supposed to draw your weapon IF you are in imminent danger and it's the only option left. If there is any other option, the firearm should NOT be drawn at all. That's what I was taught when I took the CCW class. It falls along the lines of "don't point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy", because if you pull that gun to attempt to force compliance, and it DOES discharge, and you weren't in imminent danger of being killed, you are going away for a long time.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51927595]The reason your first reaction upon drawing a gun is to squeeze the trigger is because you are ONLY supposed to draw your weapon IF you are in imminent danger and it's the only option left. If there is any other option, the firearm should NOT be drawn at all. That's what I was taught when I took the CCW class. It falls along the lines of "don't point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy", because if you pull that gun to attempt to force compliance, and it DOES discharge, and you weren't in imminent danger of being killed, you are going away for a long time.[/QUOTE] Well, you do have a point explaining it that way. We were trained rather differently, if only because of how in certain situations, the amount of time it takes to draw a gun may not be enough time to save your life. The idea was to keep very conscious of how volatile a situation was and be prepared in case it escalated, but to be firmly in control the whole time.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51927176]Like I just said, if the increase is there its completely marginal. Dont confuse increased news reports with increased violence.[/QUOTE] Yeah. Like the Sweden hitpieces that keeping getting posted.
I read an essay in my English class about a liberal from New England who moved to Texas later in life and eventually became a liberal gun owner after decades of being anti-gun. In his essay he mentions Hurricane Rita and the chaos that happened because of everyone evacuating, gas stations and supermarkets were empty and littered with trash, families lined up on the streets and traffic backed up. A scene right out of the apocalypse. Being in Texas if shit hit the fan, people will start turning on each other to protect their families first and that made the author decide to become a gun owner. For a lot of people, it isn't government to be afraid of but [I]other people around you.[/I] In the case of the author mentioned above, and other citizens living in disaster areas a gun can keep your family safe in the case of another group of people want what you have and the government is doing fuck all to help. For others, it provides security in areas where police take time to respond and at least give you a last resort. For minorities and LGBT in a Trump America, it's their lives on the line with the new mainstream bigotry that threatens them. America will never be like Europe, thinking otherwise is naive and completely ludicrous. Each state may as well be its own country in terms of culture, each region has completely different demographics and populations. Countries like France, Germany, Beligum, Netherlands, Denmark or European countries where gun laws are strict have one thing in common- they're nearly 100% white and each country has one cultural identity that its entire population is apart of. I welcome increased gun ownership so long as it brings proper handling and safety with it, if only it were under different circumstances.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51927603]Well, you do have a point explaining it that way. We were trained rather differently, if only because of how in certain situations, the amount of time it takes to draw a gun may not be enough time to save your life. The idea was to keep very conscious of how volatile a situation was and be prepared in case it escalated, but to be firmly in control the whole time.[/QUOTE] And in truth, I think that way is much more appropriate. But it's not just your average intelligence person that can get a CCW. Instruction has to be tailored in a way that doesn't leave any gray area in regards to when it's appropriate to pull your gun, because your dumbest student is not going to understand the complexities of escalation of force, and end up getting his ass thrown in prison instead for either brandishing a firearm or involuntary manslaughter.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51927667]And in truth, I think that way is much more appropriate. But it's not just your average intelligence person that can get a CCW. Instruction has to be tailored in a way that doesn't leave any gray area in regards to when it's appropriate to pull your gun, because your dumbest student is not going to understand the complexities of escalation of force, and end up getting his ass thrown in prison instead for either brandishing a firearm or involuntary manslaughter.[/QUOTE] It's a shame that that tier of training doesn't apply to all gun ownership. I'll be honest, I think the founding fathers seriously fucked up with the second amendment being written. But they couldn't have known how different technology would be today. Were there even breech-loaded weapons back then?
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51927413]Why did you assert that it's marginal then We can't tell at this stage whether they really have or haven't. Just a small nitpick I guess tho[/QUOTE] Like I just said, if it is increasing then its marginal. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=froztshock;51927631]Yeah. Like the Sweden hitpieces that keeping getting posted.[/QUOTE] Exactly, just because it happened once doesnt mean its an epidemic.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51927677]It's a shame that that tier of training doesn't apply to all gun ownership. I'll be honest, I think the founding fathers seriously fucked up with the second amendment being written. But they couldn't have known how different technology would be today. Were there even breech-loaded weapons back then?[/QUOTE] I think so. There were also things like the puckle gun. They knew technology would expand, and they knew the populace would have to be able to stay adequately armed to fight their government should they need to. But they also left us a process to amend the constitution should we need to.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51927334]It's you who should never have a gun. When I was in the police academy, we were schooled in a concept called the 'use of force continuum'. The more resistant and dangerous a suspect is, the more force is required to get them under control, and never should more force than is absolutely necessary be used. This includes, as an extreme, drawing your weapon in a situation when you're seriously outnumbered in an attempt to force compliance. Naturally, when you point a loaded firearm at someone, even with the safety engaged, you're risking a freak accident, an accidental discharge. So it's strictly a second-to-last option. But if your first reaction upon drawing a gun is to squeeze the trigger, that seems incredibly irresponsible and dangerous, unless you're in imminent danger.[/QUOTE] I dont know why youre being a dick because what you said is exactly what he said. You dont use deadly force unless deadly force os being used against you. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;51927475]Maybe so. I personally believe that every civilian who wishes to own and carry a gun should require firearms and use of force-related training and certification no less extreme than that required of LEOs, but that's just me. Using the common driver's license argument, people are not certified to operate a motor vehicle on public streets until they demonstrate they can handle one responsibly. Why not firearms, too?[/QUOTE] Just about every state that requires CCW classes school you in that states laws, federal laws, and then a live fire proficiency test. You dont know much about this subject, do you? [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;51927677]It's a shame that that tier of training doesn't apply to all gun ownership. I'll be honest, I think the founding fathers seriously fucked up with the second amendment being written. But they couldn't have known how different technology would be today. Were there even breech-loaded weapons back then?[/QUOTE] Yes, and blueprints for a sequential firing gun existed as well. The founding fathers wanted the populace to have the ability to stand up to a tyrannical government, or an invading force. There is nothing wrong with the second amendment.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51927723] Just about every state that requires CCW classes school you in that states laws, federal laws, and then a live fire proficiency test. You dont know much about this subject, do you? [/QUOTE] It's Facepunch. Everyone is suddenly an expert in foreign countries' cultures and laws.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51927656]America will never be like Europe, thinking otherwise is naive and completely ludicrous.[B] Each state may as well be its own country in terms of culture[/B], each region has completely different demographics and populations. Countries like France, Germany, Beligum, Netherlands, Denmark or European countries where gun laws are strict have one thing in common- they're nearly 100% white and [B]each country has one cultural identity[/B] that its entire population is apart of.[/QUOTE] Oh my god, I never thought I'd see someone say this in the wild. I'm dying. :v:
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51927656] America will never be like Europe, thinking otherwise is naive and completely ludicrous. Each state may as well be its own country in terms of culture, each region has completely different demographics and populations. Countries like France, Germany, Beligum, Netherlands, Denmark or European countries where gun laws are strict have one thing in common- they're nearly 100% white and each country has one cultural identity that its entire population is apart of. [/QUOTE] No offense, but I think you just smashed every single irony-meter on the planet.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51927656] America will never be like Europe, thinking otherwise is naive and completely ludicrous. Each state may as well be its own country in terms of culture, each region has completely different demographics and populations. Countries like France, Germany, Beligum, Netherlands, Denmark or European countries where gun laws are strict have one thing in common- they're nearly 100% white and each country has one cultural identity that its entire population is apart of.[/QUOTE] Is your perception of America based off 1980's B-movies or something? What the fuck are you talking about
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51927656]America will never be like Europe, thinking otherwise is naive and completely ludicrous.[/quote] are you confident about saying this for the next thousand years? American civilization (broadly the colonies of the europeans) came from Europe. They already /are/ essentially like Europe in more ways than you can imagine. There's a big reason it's called "the west" [quote]European countries where gun laws are strict have one thing in common- they're nearly 100% white[/QUOTE] um
As a trans woman, considering ways to protect myself was something that came to mind after the election. Quite a few of my minority friends have been subject to hate crimes since then, and there have been other hateful demonstrations. I came to the decision that owning a gun is warranted, just in case. I plan to get one when I have some money saved. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] And yes I'm aware my name is terribly ironic
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.