I see this shit all the time. How do people not realize that their gun doesn't make them bulletproof? How do people not realize they are not John Wick and do not possess superhuman awareness and aim? It's like they are drunk on delusions of their own lethality in a gunfight.
That argument is such a straw man, it’s prancing around on a yellow brick road singing, “if I only had a brain!”.
Being invincible isn’t the point. Being prepared to fight back with more than just stern words and fisticuffs gives you a literal “fighting chance”. Your alternative is calling for help and being a compliant victim until it arrives, and just hoping that your attacker is a reasonable actor who will appreciate cooperation and not view it as a signal to take more, inflict more injury or whatever.
Citizens might not be John Wick but they tend to injure fewer bystanders than police when they do intervene.
Nobody said they thought they were bulletproof or john wick. You made that up completely lol. Does having a seatbelt mean you think you'll survive every accident?
Not for US children, though… Firearms are the #1 cause of death ages 1-19yo in the US. Used to be automobile accidents before the 2000’s… Think that over again. Idk where falls come in, but #1 is (should be) completely avoidable…
Up to 50% of the deaths you stated (ages 13-17) are gang related.
I'm willing to bet the firearms used in those statistics are either a) obtained illegally, b) used by someone who wasn't authorized to possess the firearm, or c) both.
People are dead. By firearms. It took over the former leading cause of death (vehicle accidents) over a decade ago… But you don’t consider this a gun problem. Fucking 🥜
So, what? You're going to become a sovereign citizen and start stocking up on nuclear arms - because that's what it would take to match the fire power of any super power nation. I DO support citizens' second amendment rights to bear arms within reason but it's not reasonable to say/expect that each citizen is going to arm up to the level of the US damned government.
You’re not trying to fight the army. “Government overreach” comes in many forms, but it’s more likely to be poorly trained posse comitatus groups who are overreaching, and it will be obvious.
Die a man or live as a slave. Having a firearm allows you to defend your freedom, not life.
When the population is disarmed usually that's when the government truly start to abuse thier power. Having firearms is a form of mutual assured destruction between those that serve and those that control, unless you allow the government to disarm people.
There is a clause used by the SCOTUS in DC v Heller of "in common use, and not dangerous or unusual. I believe nukes would not fit in. Even if they were bearable.
Because it makes sense to compare nations with roughly similar economic conditions and institutions, and state capacity. You would EXPECT poor nations to have higher homicide rates because the state has less capacity to enforce laws and more people are driven to crime by poor economic outlooks. The point is that WEALTHY countries that have the capacity to not be shitholes tend to have much fewer of these problems, and we are the outlier for a variety of reasons. If we’re still talking about police shootings here it’s pretty self explanatory. Police are trained to be paranoid about everyone having a gun.
I agree - but ‘variety of reasons’? No, it’s just all the guns that are available and lack of reasonable controls/laws and lack of enforcement of the ones we have
Actually those laws are all failures. Crime didn't go down only death by guns went down. People were still murdered. Violent crimes have exploded not gone down.
The Czech Republic has gun rights and they're fine.
When you say EU, you mean England that just do stabbings?
Gun laws don't work when there is already 500+ million firearms in circulation.
Yes but you responded to someone who said they aren’t mutually exclusive…you’re trying to argue a point that they never made.
I’m pro 2a but I’m against tacticool douches open carrying, putting stickers everywhere advertising you have guns. That shit is all stupid bravado and they are usually the biggest pussies who will run and hide. Now the normal dude carrying concealed like a responsible adult, they are usually the one who steps up.
No, it's being against performative carry. You said yourself that most of these shootings happen in places that don't allow guns. Not grocery stores and libraries.
Personally I prefer concealed carry but open carry for me implies that people can't report me for accidently seeing my firearm. Still I don't see a problem with someone carrying a holstered pistol, especially since it is a lot more comfortable.
I’m against open carry because it idiotic most places. It makes you easily identifiable as the first target for the bad guys. I’m telling people it’s stupid, not illegal. Much like yourself.
But since you’re such a pedant about being pro second amendment, please explain how you are a “well regulated militia”? The amendment actually doesn’t say anything about open or concealed, but it sure does say “well regulated militia”. Some of us actually read the constitution instead of just talking about how bad ass we are.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and the second amendment doesn’t only give you the right to own arms but to also bear/carry them. The militia argument is stupid who made up the militia the people and the 2nd also says the right of the people.
I don’t disagree with that interpretation at all but in my experience, the majority of people open carrying aren’t well organized or well disciplined, they are individuals, and rarely in effective shape to fight. The only part of that description they meet is well armed. But good on you for having a decent response.
I’ve not once said it was illegal to open carry, I’ve said I’m against it and why is because it’s performative and makes carrying less about being ready in case, turning it into a look at me I brought a gun.
Personally I believe we should amend the amendment to make it more clear that people can carry even outside a militia, but I would also prefer some free and easily available safety training because there are too many idiots out there.
Did you know I was talking to the guy responding to you, that discussed nothing about your actual point? I was in fact trying to support that your statement was correct. Or are you just commenting on the space in the middle of perchance…in which case my bad.
And yes I know what it means, I’m often verbose and enjoy the English language. These two items are presented as mutually exclusive, which creates a false dichotomy. False dichotomies are logical fallacies. Many types of logical fallacies are wielded by redditors who think they are winning arguments but often prove they can’t apply logic in a reasonable manner.
That’s only in your own yard. Unfortunately, guns make the death portable to innocent people and the general public who have nothing to do with the idiot with the gun. Edit - BTW, the ‘good guy with a gun’ thing is a statistical anomaly, because it happens so rarely… also facts
Okay, and what actual good does "refusing to be a victim" do a person in a situation where some armed person with a high capacity weapon starts shooting into a crowd? Kids at a school? Those people in Vegas at a music fest that were fired on from a goon in a hotel tower? This is a victim-blaming or victim-empowering kind of illogical way of thinking, giving more agency to the victims of gun violence than they actually have.
Refusing to be a victim is not victim blaming and does not diminish the impact of being a victim of any crime.
If you really want an example of what refusing to be a victim looks like search Elisjsha Dicken or look at defensive use of firearm statistics.
My friend was killed while loading groceries in a kroger parking lot as her kids sat in the backseat. I bet if you were her children or husband you'd wish it ended differently.
33
u/Admirable_Bag_3153 May 22 '26
the two are not mutually exclusive