[ SECRET POST #2706 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2706 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 079 secrets from Secret Submission Post #387.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[ariakas]

But who's to say your attacker won't have a firearm himself? Why wouldn't you, in the US? And he'd have the drop on you, so he'd win.

The only time anyone's ever tried to mug me (in Canada) they were unarmed, and it was only as a result of that that I was able to get away. If they'd had a gun, I wouldn't have been able to run. And me carrying one myself would have done nothing because theirs would already have been out. Never have I been more glad not to live in the US. Even if I had had one and he hadn't he was still within five feet of me and would have been able to physically attack me long before I ever unholstered and aimed it. And then he would have had a gun!

In all possible scenarios me carrying a gun would have either done nothing to help, or would have made the situation actively worse. What did help? Living in a country with strict gun laws that severely reduce the amount of gun crime and criminals' access to firearms.

What possible realistic scenario can you imagine wherein having your gun will be an advantage? Because in your country, your assailant will almost certainly have one too, and it will be out before yours is. Worse, if on some chance they aren't armed, you're giving them access to your weapon because they will get the drop on you.

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[(Anonymous)]

It happens every day in at least 100,000 instances per year. As I said above, it happened to a friend of mine. He was approached by someone who demanded money, he showed his gun, they walked away.

And places in this country where law-abiding citizens are unarmed are hellholes, free-fire ranges for criminals and crazies. Chicago is a prime example of this, because newsflash! Criminals don't follow the law.

There are 300,000,000 firearms in the US. You can try to get them out of the hands of people. And you will fail. Miserably. Because we are not sheep.

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[ariakas]

It happens every day in at least 100,000 instances per year.

Citation, please? And not from the NRA website, but from a reputable source? Posted along with data detailing the number of citizens who escalate a situation because they were armed and are killed or maimed as a result, who are killed or maimed with their own weapon, who accidentally kill or maim a loved one with their own weapon, and whose children kill or maim themselves with that weapon.

it happened to a friend of mine. He was approached by someone who demanded money, he showed his gun, they walked away.

Or so he said. Made up stories make people sound tough, and justify the ownership of a weapon that said "perp" would have been easily able to take from him. That scenario sounds ridiculous, and only magically works in this circumstance because the criminal isn't armed. If he was (which he will be, because as you said "criminals don't follow the law") your friend would have been screwed, gun or no.

And places in this country where law-abiding citizens are unarmed are hellholes, free-fire ranges for criminals and crazies.

And places in your country where law-abiding citizens are armed are hellholes, free-fire ranges for criminals and crazies, compared to my country, where gun laws are vastly stricter than "Chicago". Our gun crime is orders of magnitude lower; our overall violent crime rate is several times lower as well. Because newsflash! All criminals were law-abiding citizens who could receive a firearm at one point.

Because we are not sheep.

Yes, you have third world tier murder rates and constant mass shootings and do absolutely nothing about either because you're "not" sheep.

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[(Anonymous)]

100,000 times per year: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

The NRA number, for the record, is far higher than that.

I live in a state where a full third of us have concealed carry permits. The murder rate is ridiculously low. You seem to think it's the wild west out here or something.

Those "constant mass shootings" happen in... surprise! "Gun free zones." Where law-abiding citizens are hamstrung. Yes, tell me again how much safer I'd be if I'm not armed. And please delineate how you're going to disarm a country where the vast majority of the people believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[ariakas]

And how many hundreds of thousands of situations does it make worse? How many loved ones are killed? I note that you conveniently left that part out. Moreover, that number is from a survey, with similarly politically-motivated gun owners padding that number egregiously. As stated in the article itself, it likely includes: "many “false positives”: respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU."

Your "ridiculously low" is still three times higher than Canada, and your gun crime is still orders of magnitude higher. It may not be the "Wild West" to you, because it's all you've ever known, but it is to me - you can do better, you simply refuse to try, because you're terrified of your government and fellow citizens. That's no way to live.

It hardly matters if one area is a "gun free zone" if the rest of the country is a "trigger happy, anything goes zone"; you could have no mass shootings, as in countries who've changed their gun laws in response to those events, like Canada and Australia. Or you could continue with half-assed, bandaid solutions gun free zones while your citizens continue to murder each other at alarming rates because of "freedom".

And please delineate how you're going to disarm a country where the vast majority of the people believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

You do it how Australia did it, and Canada does it: you convince those citizens that they would be better off with stricter gun laws.

If you can do that, it works; that's a fact.

And when the law is passed, you arrest those who disobey it, charge them, and seize their weapons. The cops still get better guns than you. They're better trained. If you confront them, they'll win.

But so would your military, making the Second Amendment completely pointless. That concealed sidearm and the AR-15 in your closet won't save you from drone strikes. Especially when the NSA already knows you have them, and where you keep them - making you the first target should they ever choose to take them away.

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[(Anonymous)]

This has some good info ariakas! http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[ariakas]

Thanks, anon. I knew a fair bit of that already, but there was some I definitely did not!

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

Yeah that says just about everything I needed to say.

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I see. Mother Jones is a totally unbiased source, but the NRA needs to be burned with fire.

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[ariakas]

Mother Jones' sources are linked for you to examine, as are their methodologies and the data used. If you have a problem with any of them, by all means, state it. Whereas the NRA "statistic" for "defensive uses" was self-reported by gun owners. That is so transparently flawed it would be the height of intellectual dishonesty to pretend it was a meaningful value.

...If that's seriously all you've got left, you might as well just go to bed. You're done.

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[feotakahari]

What stats are they using to determine times guns are "used"? There's a famous study indicating that in the vast majority of cases where guns are aimed at burglars or robbers, those guns are never fired. http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html (Though the results have been questioned: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=112 )

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[ariakas]

They have all the studies they used for these stats linked; in that case it's this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[feotakahari]

Yeah, that one explicitly leaves out cases where the gun doesn't injure or kill anyone. In Kleck's study, 92% of cases where a gun was used for self defense involved either warning shots with no injury, or never firing a shot. (Again, I have no clue how good a study it was, and it has come under fire, but it at least makes sense that aiming a gun at someone wouldn't necessarily mean firing it.)

Re: Suprisingly decent article on self defence

[ariakas]

Yeah, reading that, he's still using self-reported survey data, albeit with slightly more rigorous protocols than some. As your other article points out, gun owners self report having shot someone in self-defense at twice the rate of gunshot wounds treated in hospitals annually. In other words, they're lying at tremendous rates about incidents that are demonstrably false; at what rate then do figure the gun owners surveyed are lying about/exaggerating instances that would leave no evidence? These claims "justify" the need to own a firearm in this case, both politically and personally, in spite of the grave and very real risks of ownership.