[ 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]

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.