It seems that you are repeatedly putting bullets over brawn. Possibly even bullets over intelligence. Is that not the mindset of mass shooters: that they can use bullets to lord over others. Then the NRA crowd jumps in with the need for more guns to lord over those who want to lord over others. It is a rat hole kind of argument. Simple fact remains, the more access to a gun, the more likely one is to use it. I grew up in the gun world. At each stage of my childhood my father gave me a cap gun, an air gun, a bb gun, a .22. My dad regularly took me and my brothers to the shooting range. I've won shooting contests. My teenage years involved me, and by friends terrorizing the country side with our .22s. I know quite a bit about gun people. As an adult I have chosen to not own a firearm. I've gone hunting, but I use a bow, a recurve bow. Mostly in a survival style of backpacking. If I'm going to kill something, I'm not going to stand on a hill and shoot at it from afar. I'm going to get up close and personal. Seems to me the real issue at hand is the difference in the way conservatives think verses the way liberals think. The fear factor. Why do you think that Trump keeps going to the wall issue? It plays upon the fears of conservative minds. Conservatives keep telling me how much more manly they are. They keep telling me that liberals are weak and cowardly. But time and time again, it seems without a gun, a conservative's only option is to complain about those who aren't too fond of guns. In my youth I played in rock bands. My singer wrote this song that we always played. It was a true story from his youth, about how the guy next door shot and killed his wife and children and then killed himself.
No, I see someone who is trying to say that you don't need guns to defend yourself. If that's true, then going up against an armed opponent unarmed should work in multiple scenarios. Clearly it doesn't. Desperately using anything you have to save your life has nothing to do with the effectiveness of being armed vs unarmed.
Why is it then, that so many gun buddies, think that a man can't face a threat without a gun? What makes a man with a gun anymore invincible than a man without a gun? Does it have anything to do with those who appear to tie their bravery to the weapon in their hand?
This thread is about group safety in a mass shooting situation, and you are off talking about the military. Well buck up bucko, the cavalry isn't going to save you.
No. I'm talking about the effectiveness of unarmed defense against an armed opponent. I realize why you don't want to discuss things that destroy your narrative though.
That's about 36%. I think you need to look at the definition of "usually" again. I also question half that 36% in that they "kill themselves before police arrive".
Seems like your daddy wasted his time and money. you're a regular Chuck Norris tough guy. That's right, the police won't get there in time. You still refuse to answer whether you think 'luck' is a defense, because this kid in the OP was definitely lucky. 'My name's Lucky and you'd better put that gun down".
I think that there is a mentality that I find rather odd. I start a thread about an unarmed man who took out a school mass shooter. And what is the conservative response? He should have had a gun.
Still running from the question. We need to write a new student handbook instructing all students to seek out Mr. Miagi as they will be expected to 'man up" and fend off school shooters bare handed. That's your answer.
You brought it up in the OP yourself. You can try to paint me off-topic if you'd like to try, but it's not going to work out for you.
I believe in using the correct tool for the job. Nothing more nothing less. It’s interesting you see self defense as lording over others. I’m starting to get the feeling you don’t hate guns like some, you just don’t trust yourself with one. Actually, I’m glad for these types of anti gunners. They would definitely be a threat. Authoritarian tendencies, lack of impulse control, over inflated ego, drug use etc. aren’t conducive to responsibility with firearms. The problem comes when the ego and authoritarianism combine and the person who sees they can’t be trusted with firearms projects that onto others. The assertion here that law abiding firearm owners, some of which like myself use firearms in practical application almost daily, share the mindset of mass shooters, demonstrates my point perfectly. Well I certainly hope so. I have mine to use. The reason none of your arguments are being taken seriously is because they are subjective. They are just based on your feelings. For example, the guy who hunts black bear with a spear or the guy who hunts wild hogs with a blade can call you a coward. Your argument is illogical. A recurve bow is not up close and personal compared to a blade. Many handgun hunters likely are as up close and personal or more so than you with a bow. Show me a conservative who wants to control immigration out of fear. Just one. Possibly you are projecting here again as well. I don’t know about percentages of cowards by party. I do know the overwhelming majority of those who commit felonies with guns identity as Democrats, vote that way when possible, and say they would if not prohibited from voting. I’m glad people like you aren’t fond of guns. Could have done society a more productive service by writing a song about drunks crashing into innocent people’s cars, beating their wives and children, destroying their health, committing various felonies and misdemeanors, and all too often offing themselves. Just sayin’.
Maybe hunting. Justifiable homicide is very rare. Sadly hundreds of thousands of lives are sacrificed because some people want to own guns as toys.
You said most guns are used for suicide and self harm. Clearly that cannot be true when there are 350+ million firearms and 30,000 deaths attributed to them, however tenuously. We also know that, at it's LOWEST, the estimated number of lives saved by firearms is around 162,000 a year. Most defensive usage of a firearm doesn't involve pulling the trigger, it only involves presenting a firearm, or the attacker is shot and does not die. https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
162,000 per her seems to be an exaggeration by a factor of 100. In USA each year, 20,000 people take their lives with guns. Sadly for many, lives of severely depressed mean nothing. I never thought of self-harm, but my depression is moderate.
Actually, it's the lowest number of all the studies. And more than 20,000 people take their lives with rope, pills, and bridges. The countries with the highest suicide rates in the world don't have access to guns. The gun doesn't make you want to kill yourself. Being suicidal makes you want to kill yourself.
Best defense against violent crime is universal provision of medical and psychiatric care. Canada has low crime rate.
Does it? https://www.immigroup.com/news/top-16-worst-major-cities-canada-crime-rate-2019 Regina and Saskatoon readily disagrees. I'm sure that a country the size of the US with the population of CA would have little opportunity. Where there's no people, which is most of Canada, I'm sure there's little crime.
Different jurisdictions have different definitions of assault. Murder rate in Canada is lower then in USA.
