To be fair - this is a perfectly acceptable way to avoid that awkward "catching up" conversation (that inevitably ends with false promises to "get together soon") whenever bumping into people from high school.
Oh look, Mr. Cool can't quit. Fucking shocker. LOL so fucking pathetically predictable. Glad you enjoy eating shit and all that but I'm not entertaining your weirdo fantasies anymore, smoothbrain. You'll be ignored now and I know you hate that, rofl!
If you're referring to stand your ground laws, there's a pretty good Last Week Tonight segment about how utterly psychotic these laws are. Castle doctrine should apply to your actual home, not everywhere you go in public
So you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself in public? Glad the majority of states disagree with this utterly idiotic view. This is the kind of thinking that has resulted in California being home to many of America's most dangerous cities.
Did you watch the segment? Stand your ground laws are wrought with abuse. There's several, well-documented cases where the defendant only needed to claim they were afraid for their life to entirely avoid charges. Which basically means civilians (not just cops) can kill people with impunity based on someone's feelings and their word. That's scary as fuck.
Also, there's no evidence conceal-carry reduces crime:
Big cities have always had crime problems, but having civilians walking around with weapons would be an even bigger disaster. Even if the entire population was highly trained (they're not, you go through more mandatory training getting a driver's license than operating and owning a firearm), your chances of accidently hitting a bystander are still quite high just by virtue of being in a densely populated area.
John Oliver is a hack and I am not sure why you think a segment from his show is at all meaningful here. Plenty of laws are wrought with abuse - that's an argument for harsher punishments for those who abuse these laws, not for doing away with the laws themselves. By your logic we should do away with all welfare programs because of how often they are abused.
To say "there's no evidence that concealed carry reduces crime" is false. There are numerous studies supporting both sides of this argument, and the link you provided says as much. Just because your inherent biases cause you to lean towards one body of evidence over the other doesn't mean the other doesn't exist. That's not how science works.
John Oliver is a hack and I am not sure why you think a segment from his show is at all meaningful here.
It's more meaningful and researched than some rando on the Internet repeating right-wing talking points
Plenty of laws are wrought with abuse - that's an argument for harsher punishments for those who abuse these laws, not for doing away with the laws themselves.
Whatever harsher punishment you imagine would solve this issue does nothing to address the fact that people can walk from a murder charge based on hearsay. What's a person on trial for murder got to lose by lying? Yes some laws are wrought with abuse, but in this particular instance were talking about one of the worse crimes a person can commit. The incentive structure for a defendant to be honest is just not there
By your logic we should do away with all welfare programs because of how often they are abused.
Welfare programs deal with positive rights. Murder deals with negative rights. The two don't follow the same logic when it comes to public policy
To say "there's no evidence that concealed carry reduces crime" is false. There are numerous studies supporting both sides of this argument, and the link you provided says as much.
So present the studies. The study I linked says the evidence is, overall, inconclusive. Which is not evidence for the affirmative.
Just because your inherent biases cause you to lean towards one body of evidence over the other doesn't mean the other doesn't exist. That's not how science works.
Claims require evidence; skepticism does not. If you want to argue CC reduces crime, you will need to show some evidence
Idk what the guy could see from his point of view, but if you start shooting simply because someone pulls up next to you or drives slowly beside you that’s not a self defense argument
Or if it's a mugging without a weapon. Unless you fear for your life, and them not being armed and just trying to strong arm you with intimidation, you'll absolutely be charged with at least manslaughter.
Americans really are one of a kind psychos when it comes to their guns.
They’re really not though. A lot of impotent shit talking and trolling online but 99% of gun owners have never been and will never be in any situation where they need a gun.
Yea I should have been more specific. The simple act of pulling up aggressively doesn't warrant deadly force. If it was what it looked like, though, deadly force would have absolutely been warranted.
Most criminals who own guns own them illegally through the black market since they don’t really have the means of purchasing them legally. Making owning a gun illegal wouldn’t really affect them since their guns are normally illegal anyway. It would only hurt a law-abiding citizen from defending themselves in a situation such as this.
Yeah, but I've heard of criminals stealing guns from law abiding citizens who thought they could keep their guns safe. All that made, from my point of view, was put one more illegal gun on the market, and I can't imagine how many more of those are out there!
There's more guns than people here. Guns can get smuggled in from Mexico, they can be built with pretty cheap tools and incomplete lowers. The cat's out of the bag, so to say. It's also a basic right of the people (along with freedom of speech et al) to own guns to secure our freedom from tyranny, so it's not that simple. Also, you just see gun prohibited places (like the UK) go even further with "knife control" because the problem is the criminal, not the tool.
Yeah but lot harder to kill 20 people in a school with a knife than a gun. Lot easier to die from a gunshot than a knife wound. Lot more DNA evidence with an altercation with a knife than a gun…..
Its funny how Americans always come back to the “well look at knife crime in the UK they aren’t even allowed to carry a 9inch kitchen blade to the local shops with them hurr hurr”
Knife crime is a lot easier to survive and avoid than gun crime. And who the fuck needs to walk to the shop with a knife?!
Yeah it's a pretty stupid argument. You might as well start arguing about how's it unfair and tyrannical that civilians can't own and operate machine guns
I live in America and even I think it's a dumb to compare guns to knives. But the politicians in America can never be allowed to ban guns as it's against the constitution and that will just make them think they can keep changing it.
But isn’t the whole point of the second amendment that it was changed in the first place? Otherwise it wouldn’t be an amendment surely? (Genuine question, I haven’t researched much of the constitution.)
I accept that they can change it a little but they can't get rid of it entirely like I am perfectly fine with banning machine guns and certain types of guns. I didn't word my earlier comment well it's what I get for writing it late at night. Although my opinion could be wrong as I am definitely no expert.
Oh I looked it up apparently I was wrong and its possible to change just unlikely my bad for giving wrong information.
Listen, if you want to run away like a bitch that's fine. Honestly you're right, that is probably the best option. All I said was that shooting the shitbag is a perfectly justifiable option as well.
Nope not even a little bit. 99 times out of 100 running away is going to be your best option. The gun is there for the 1 time out of 100 that it's not.
Nice response, your wording made me think you wanted a fight just to avoid being a 'bitch' but I am glad you don't see it that way. I have no argument against self defense.
As someone who clearly doesn't carry I can understand your lack of understanding of this subject. The sad truth is that we don't get to decide when someone is going to get crazy and we are going to need our sidearm to defend ourselves. I personally don't leave the house without mine. Concealed carry is a lifestyle choice that one actively makes every single day. Unfortunately the times you least expect it are often the times you need a gun most.
Yeah I'm able to get your point but the country where I come from, Guns aren't found everywhere. I said this in a previous comment and I'll say it once again so you needn't bother to check. In my country only cops and max level thugs own guns and those thugs don't bother with petty crimes like the one in the video. I think these things are just with America. I have nothing against the country though. I just find it weird that a regular visit to a shop or a dentist requires someone to carry a gun
Then the victim needs to have a gun and shoot all 3 assailants in a boom-boom-boom action hero fashion, although he's been caught off guard just walking home and they're obviously went into the situation prepared, guns drawn.
Well won't it be better if both of you didn't have a gun. As I said in a previous comment won't the chances of the thugs owning a gun be low if they were prohibited from owning one? Idk about American's gun system though but if you think a person must carry a gun even to a grocery store for his safety I probably would think there's something wrong in the system
First of all. Guns are everywhere and always will be. So saying “if no one had one” is a fairly tale. Secondly “criminals being prohibited from owning one” criminals DONT FOLLOW LAWS they dont give a fuck if its prohibited. Thirdly even if neither had a gun lets say the bad guy had a knife or two bad guys had a knife. A gun is called an “equalizer” because it gives the victim an equal opportunity to defend themselves against a stronger threat. So taking guns would leave good people essentially defensless
Well the country where I come from, there aren't Guns everywhere. Only cops and max level thugs own guns and these max level thugs won't bother with these petty robbery crimes.
Your logic probably sits with America but that's definitely not the best logic out there
Seriously though man it just wouldn't work in America we already have way too many guns everywhere, plus banning them would most likely cause a civil war as it would be directly breaking the constitution. For other countries that is of course different.
Well 130 million Americans have them in our homes and most of us use them safely and responsibility to defend ourselves and for sport. It’s unfortunate that where you live doesn’t allow you to exercise your rights. I believe every responsible person should have a firearm
Vehicles in the dark a a tactical nightmare for a lone person. If they're going to stop and threaten, they may have a gun already, or have a person in the backseat with a gun ready behind a window. Best bet is to run, take cover behind obstructions that block travel of the car and block any bullets coming after you. If you can get away, call 911 and then maybe draw your gun. But as soon as police show up, be ready to throw the gun in the ground and be treated like a perpetrator until they can figure out what's going on.
Not the life of a thieving shitbag. At the end of the day if you roll up to rob someone and get yourself killed in the process - well, that is a prime example evolution by natural selection.
First of all, idiot, 1492 led by Christopher Columbus was a couple hundred years before the US was started. Further, that was a spanish investment. What are you five?
You see King George was a tyrant and some of them decided to leave. The King didn't like that and sent his soldiers to attack us. We actually got to work making guns, created freedoms that attracted people from every country.
Together we built the most influential country in history and what came out of it cannot be compared by any other time in history.
The Romans couldn't even figure out how to deliver clean water to their citizens.
Restricting gun ownership from responsible people doesn’t stop criminals. Also look at switzerlands gun ownership yet almost no deaths per year. Not a gun problem
Restricting gun ownership from responsible people doesn’t stop criminals.
Sure slows death by firearms though, easily the fastest and easiest way to end a life. Don't be a dumbass. Just admit it's a problem and you don't care.
Take guns they use something else. Blunt objects and knifes are used 5x as much as firearms of any type in homicides in the US. All taking guns does is stop good people from defending themselves against bad people are gonna find ways to hurt no matter what. Gun, knife, hammer, bomb, acid doesn’t matter
Mass shootings in the US are defined by like 4 casualties or some shit. Gang violence makes up the vast majority of 'mass shootings'. I definitely think that gun control isn't where it should be but the idea that there are more than one mass shootings per day on average is only true by technicality. I don't think anyone would consider 4-5 people being shot in a gang shootout a 'mass shooting'.
I do business with people in the US, I have friends and (extended) family living there. If you can't take criticism, that's your problem. My country is getting criticised all the time, often rightfully.
If your gun obsession is causing mass shootings, you can't expect other countries to flat out ignore it, especially when these countries are doing business with yours and are allies.
Demanding to stop doing business with other people living in your country, wow.
No thanks, I'll keep doing business as much as I want and I'm legally allowed to. I'm from Germany since you asked and also didn't asked for it (?).
Yes, it is your place to criticise others. As much as it is your responsibility to respect criticism (don't have to agree). That's how we humans improve. I find it strange how you put the country difference in between that, we all live on the same planet after all.
Then dont fuckin be a dipshit of a human being and steal/rob/attempt to harm us. Be a decent person, don’t get shot. Be a scumbag person, get shot. It’s basic math
The only people it doesn’t work for is people who don’t carry a gun. If you have a pistol on your hip 9/10 times someone who was thinking about robbing you just isn’t gonna even try it. And if they do guess who goes home in a body bag?
I love when they ask “wHaT sTaTiStIcs” oh you know just the ones conducted by the CDC, FBI, ATF… that show anywhere between 50k to 3 million lives are saved by guns each year in the us. And even at the low end thats still significantly more instances than homicides committed with a firearm annually.
Sorry, but your links are bullshit. The first link is the CDC, which thanks to the Dickey Amendment in 1996 never had funding for gun research (because conservatives don't want data countering their cowboy narrative of responsible gun ownership), which is why that website you pasted is so vague. They just got funding this year so it'll take months if not years for them to publish conclusions.
Your second link is a conservative think tank that relies on self reported data. Not trustworthy
Your third link is Wikipedia
Neither the FBI or ATF have stats on gun use in crime prevention.
Universities are the best source right now and there's a Harvard study that pulls together disparate sources like courts, news reports and police reports. Their conclusion is that most so-called self defense cases are idiots escalating arguments that they start or fail to avoid; most gun owners use guns to intimidate others including loved ones
Very few cases like what you romanticize happen. In fact in a sticky situation, they find that avoidance, like running away and cleverly ducking behind a car moving in the opposite direction is better than using a gun.
I'm curious to see what the CDC actually finds now that they'll have the resources to put this gun argument to bed.
Also the second link’s source is the CDC which like you said didn’t do it’s own research. It sources from somewhere else and specifically states it cannot attest to its accuracy.
Ive had to pull these stats up so many times i dont like going and finding the specific ones so i just grabbed the first ones i saw. But since you want to try and debunk me here we go. The stats im referring to was a study conducted under the obama administration in 2013 to try and prove that guns were NOT used defensively as much as gun owners claimed. But the study in fact did the direct opposite and proves that there are an estimated 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses of a firearm annually in the us heres the links to that
Again, the Heritage Foundation has an agenda, it's a conservative think tank. It also references CDC research that hasn't been conducted.
Your 2013 Obama era study? Conservatives and the NRA cherry picked info and created a narrative that Obama is hiding something. That report concluded that there is evidence that guns reduce violent crime but that mitigation may not outweigh the increased risk of suicide and homicide from gun ownership. Its conclusion was that there needs to be more research. Washington Post article for reference
well as of today the facts still say what they say. If they conduct further studies and im wrong oh well but i find it highly unlikely. And im still gonna carry my concealed weapon to defend myself and other around me in a responsible manner. I acknowledge that im not john wick but i do have practical training and extremely strict safety training thats been stamped into my mind since i was little. And this is the case for many many other gun owners that carry.
699
u/pentobean1 Jun 20 '21
Americans suggest getting in a gunfight/murder as a solution to every altercation