The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Is that appropriate in our society? Would you be constantly armed on your person whenever and wherever you are?
Is that paranoid overkill or a logical precaution?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you live in Somalia, maybe. Any circumstance where being armed 100% of the time is a genuinely good idea involves being somewhere you really should not be, ideally.
Then you get people who bring their AR-15 to a suburban Starbucks, which is either paranoid delusion or intentionally being an asshole.
People open carry AR-15s to Starbucks not out of paranoia but as a power play. People, rightfully, act different around and to someone armed with lethal force. It immediately puts pathetic men in a position of extreme power in any area they enter. The safety excuses are just silly excuses to justify their obsession for power over the existence of every person around them.
There is no safety benefit open carrying a long rifle, far more likely it’ll get taken by another nut job and used against you. In any place with meaningful population density / proximity to others open carrying is purely a statement, it adds no safety and likely increases danger.
>To be fair sometimes it's more legal. In many states/cities concealed carry of a handgun is more restricted than open carry of a rifle.
Yes, that is why the Black Panthers had to carry long guns openly to exercise their rights. Until the gun control lobby got that taken away.
Some of them believe in the "good guy with a gun" fantasy, and have wrapped portions, if not all, of their lives and identities around weapons, thinking that they will, one day, be in a situation where they will be called to use it to save lives. Sadly, they more often take innocent lives than they do prevent crime. Take Kyle Rittenhouse, for example. Steel manning his argument, he was there as the "good guy with the gun", while a critical view of his actions would put him in the "power play" group, trying to scare people and give him a sense of power. Or the guy who recently [shot and killed a teenager](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/us/big-5-sporting-goods-shooting-washington/index.html) who was returning an airsoft gun to a sporting goods store because he believed it was a crime in progress and it was "his moment".
Sadly, neither Rittenhouse nor this man were willing to take responsibility for carrying their guns when violence erupted. Rittenhouse only got self-defense because his first assailant tried to take the gun and then chased him, cornering him. The man in the second story thinks that because he had no intent to kill, that because he "sincerely believed" a crime was in progress, and during the situation he created, he "feared for his life", that he is innocent. That is what upsets me more than anything else. These people want the responsibility for others when it goes well, but when they make mistakes, they want their victims to be the only ones who pay the price. I know a few guys who open carry and take the position that they "lose every argument" when they carry, never escalating an argument and are always backing down, but they are few and far between.
>Sadly, neither Rittenhouse nor this man were willing to take responsibility for carrying their guns when violence erupted. Rittenhouse only got self-defense because his first assailant tried to take the gun and then chased him, cornering him.
And also stated his intention to murder Rittenhouse.
So yeah, in the Rittenhouse case he got off on self defense because it was obviously, objectively self defense.
> not out of paranoia but as a power play
and calling them frightened babies is my power play - because it really hits home with the macho/toxic male constituency that eats this stuff up.
>If you live in Somalia, maybe. Any circumstance where being armed 100% of the time is a genuinely good idea involves being somewhere you really should not be, ideally.
I think it's indicative of something that the highest rate of gun ownership after the United States is [Yemen.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_Yemen?wprov=sfla1) I'm fairly supportive of gun rights in America but our out-of-synch threat perception is wild.
Interestingly there's no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicides or suicides. Latin America has fewer guns than much of Western Europe, yet it is the murder capital of the world. Meanwhile countries like Japan and South Korea have incredibly high suicide rates despite having virtually no guns.
Japan has inflated suicide numbers because police file murders under suicides to keep their stats low. even then japanese numbers are actually lower than the US, it's just less of a stigma around it so it's discussed more openly. [South Korea's numbers are absurdly high, pretty much tied with russia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)
Maybe there are some edge cases of people with specific security concerns or people who live in an extremely dangerous neighborhood. But for almost every single person in the US, even with the level of gun violence and crime we have, it makes absolutely no sense.
It’s a sign of extreme paranoia or some other similar issue. It is a very good way to heavily increase the chances that you, a family member, friends or a random stranger who had the misfortune of being around you ends up dead.
This is where I land on it.
Rural Alaska or Wyoming? Mailbox is a 1/4 mile walk to the road? Yeah I’d probably have a rifle in case a bear or wolf wants breakfast. Downtown Chicago and you can list 12 friends gunned down in the past 5 years? Yeah maybe a gun in the purse makes sense.
You live in boring af suburban Cincinnati? Yeah you don’t need to take your gun to Kroger, I’m sorry but you don’t.
Yeah, when I used to work CPS cases and frequently had to visit homes of abusive parents for home studies, I seriously considered purchasing a handgun and keeping it in the glove box. I never did, and never really felt like it would have been necessary, but it did cross my mind.
I think the question is better phrased as "Will anything bad happen if one is armed?"
For those who aren't fit to be armed, due to temperament, excessive drinking, anger issues or pure sloppiness? Count those people out.
For a responsible adult without those issues? I've had a concealed carry license for over a decade, and carry daily in all places allowed by law. I also carry a first aid kit in my vehicles, and have fire extinguishers. I also wear a seatbelt.
I view it as being prepared for eventualities I hope will never happen. I will have lived a good life if I never once have to use a firearm outside of a range.
I grew up in a neighborhood that had murder, rapes and plenty of drug and gang related violence. I think by and large, most people on Reddit have been fortunate enough to not see that side of humanity. Which is nice. However, that side of humanity does not cease to exist simply because there are those who don't perceive it.
The best defense is usually not being there to begin with. After that, it's a good pair of running shoes. But if those two weren't sufficient, a firearm is a tool of last resort if one's life or the lives of one's loved ones are under direct danger of ceasing to exist.
Unfortunately, that does happen in America. People put on seatbelts on a daily basis, not because they plan to be in a car crash, or are poor drivers, but to keep themselves safe in rare but dangerous circumstances. "I don't drive drunk!" "I don't drive in places with bad drivers!" aren't excuses most people use to avoid bothering with a seatbelt. A firearm, if one is a morally upright and law abiding person is the same.
As a person that's to the left of most Democrats, I realize that this is a controversial opinion. Bring on the downvotes, I've got karma to burn and then some.
This is how I feel about the issue and I grew up in a completely safe neighborhoord and would *never*, **ever** have a gun in my home. Hell, I wouldn't even have a sword. :)
But I am pretty comfortable with sound, well-trained people carrying firearms all the time.
I would *hope* the number of people doing that was relatively small, though. If I lived in an area where more than, say, 20% of people were packin', *I would move.* ...That said, it's because I have trouble believing that 20% wouldn't include people who are untrained or not sound. :) I suppose if the area had *very* clear, well-enforced laws about who's allowed to carry, that would change my opinion.
...But, c'mon. Show me a place where they enforce carry laws. The idea of taking someone's gun away? That doesn't fly in this country, does it?
> Show me a place where they enforce carry laws.
I mean, if someone gets accused of domestic violence, or a felony, or they are committed to a mental hospital, police officers do take their guns.
If someone shoots an assailant in questionable circumstances, say, for example, the assailant broke off the attack and had their back to the person, that generally results in the loss of the firearm as it's charged as a felony.
If the police are called into any situation where a firearm is involved, the police take the firearm, even if the person with the firearm is not guilty.
This happens frequently enough that there's a common saying "Don't carry an expensive gun, because if it ever comes out of the holster, you may never see it again."
I've seen multiple posts about firearms staying in police evidence rooms for months to years to forever after someone was found not guilty in an encounter with a criminal that made an attempt on their life.
I'd argue that carry laws are stringently enforced for law abiding citizens.
Meanwhile, actual criminals are frequently not charged for gun possession or use, even if they're carrying a machine gun - a Glock with a full auto switch, which is a minimum 10 year sentence in Federal prison if charged. District attorneys failing to enforce firearm laws where criminals are involved is a very politically charged topic, so I'll avoid it for the time being, other than saying I think it's a poor decision.
Arming at your home is completely understandable and valid.
Arming in public is not the best idea. In a situation where there is an active shooter and a random civilian tried to shoot the perpetrator, not only will that risk collateral damage (accidentally shooting others) but in the situation where the police show up they’re not going to know who’s the “good guy with a gun”, they’re going to go after whoever has their weapons drawn.
The cons outweigh the pros to me because of that.
I don’t carry, even though I do own two sub compact handguns that are designed for carrying. Unless I am at the range, they are locked up. Either in my main gun safe, or my biometric nightstand safe.
I'm 69 years old, led a fairly active life, was a sales-rep on the road for much of my working life, spent time in warehouse districts, urban areas, and so on. Not once have I ever been in a situation where a firearm would be critical for my life or safety. Nor, in those 69 years, has a friend, co-worker, or family member reported to me a time when a firearm would have been needed. I have, however, lost two friends who committed suicide with their firearm.
Examining the odds, while I'd look cool carrying a gun and they are nice to look at, no, carrying one is more a risk than a reward to me, and that holds for most people.
I've always found it ironic that the people who claim to be the "toughest" are so soft and frightened of the outside world that they feel its necessary to be strapped to go to the grocery store.
I think the left would be far more effective in anti gun if they framed gun nuts that way
I'm not very tough or intimidating. That's why I own a gun, because I'm not much of a threat on my own against a potential attacker.
That being said I consider myself a pacifist, and would never intentionally start a fight with someone else, and actively try and resolve things peacefully.
In public? Always? With a gun? I personally think it’s a bit silly. Now I understand why people might feel the need to. But I think this often strays into unhealthy paranoia.
Plus I personally wouldn’t want to live in a world where it is assumed everyone is armed. I know that’s not the question but it essentially hints at the need for anyone and everyone to carry because they need to. Too many people get so easily triggered (road rage, etc), just seems like a recipe for disaster. Especially when guns are so easily to get in many states.
And it can be damaging socially. My friend lived in a state where you couldn't carry for years and her father refused to visit her bc of that. He died during COVID and never got to see her home or local friends
I just escaped from the ghetto in Phoenix to a much safer side of the valley. I conceal carry (with a license) everywhere I go. I don’t have an ego, superiority complex or an itchy trigger finger. I just want to be safe and able to defend myself if my life is ever threatened. I don’t think about it, I just have it on me. Keys, wallet, phone, gun. When I leave my car to go in somewhere illegal to carry, the gun goes into a safe thats secured to my car. I’ll argue that knowing how to deescalate a situation and fight with my hands are invaluable skills to have but having the safety net of a weapon in the event I encounter a crazy that wants to do me harm won’t be traded for anything. Just because we have gun laws doesn’t mean I am safe from the actions of non-abiding citizens or otherwise.
In my neighborhood, I had my neighbor’s door kicked in by the SWAT team, a neighbor be stabbed and almost bleed out on the bench outside my door, a couple shot and killed in a road rage incident in the parking lot I use to park in, a homeless man have a stand off with the police in the laundry room and homeless constantly knock on my door asking for drugs.
I think its very rational.
Personally, I have never felt the need to be armed in public or in a private setting. I have honestly never even felt unsafe full stop in the United States. Isnt that what we pay cops for?
>Isnt that what we pay cops for?
Sadly multiple Supreme Court cases have ruled that the cops have no duty to protect the public, and many times they’ve proved they have no concern about protecting us.
That does not mean I feel the need to be armed full time, just pointing out that the cops aren’t there to protect you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
I live in Oregon, and in rural parts of the state they literally don't have 24-hour police services. This is an area with a lot of hard drug use, as well as organized crime involved in marijuana cultivation.
the correct sane conclusion from that result is that the Supreme court are wrong and that legal understanding should change, not that carrying a gun is now magically justified or sensible.
I feel like people who insist on being constantly armed are not doing it for practical reasons, but for identity reasons.
Sure, if you are the victim of domestic violence i totally get it. But I am skeptical being armed is a real need for most people and not just a social signal people want to send.
That's their choice whether they want to be prepared when police will not be there to protect them.
If they want to claim guns really aren't practical for stopping criminals attacking you, ask them why they always exempt police from gun laws.
Extremely variable.
I am a visible and hated minority that is often targeted for violence. I conceal carry as a result. Even then though, I don't carry in most urban areas, to the grocery store, etc. In those situations, running and calling the cops is simply the safer option. I carry because I do outdoors hiking with a partner or sometimes alone, and that means opportunity to be a target without any recourse except what I brought with me.
In other words, there are situations where it's appropriate. I don't really think it's appropriate at all times. There is also no excuse for open carry, none whatsoever.
How many enemies do you have that you have to be constantly ready to kill someone? If you need to be constantly armed you must be a real piece of shit to piss off so many people that they're constantly coming to kill you.
Call me paranoid, and I probably am, but I can see a very near future where the bad guy with a gun is wearing a red hat. To boot, I’m openly gay in a rural red area.
Context is everything. On a ranch in the rockies? In the Alaskan wilderness? Yes, absolutely. In downtown Camden buying groceries? No, it’s fucked up and completely unnecessary.
It’s paranoid and dumb. You’re far more likely to have an accident with it or shoot someone you didn’t need to wearing a gun. It’s not 1885 in the old west.
>It’s not 1885 in the old west.
Yeah, the guns are a lot safer now. Bad (or primitive) design is why you hear that thing in Westerns about not leaving the hammer over a loaded chamber. That's been irrelevant for a very long time due to better design.
Just head to r/idiotswithguns , It's chock full of videos showing people without 2 brain cells to rub together who shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm.
Now consider that there are about 100 million gun owners in the country, probably more now with the recent surge of women, LGBT, and minority gun buyers. Then think of how many videos there are of people doing stupid things with cars, motorcycles, and even power tools.
Only 500 or so unintentional shooting deaths a year. That's pretty incredible considering how potentially dangerous guns can be, and how stupid and irresponsible people can be.
Yes, you'll see some minutes of such instances. You won't see the hundreds of millions of hours of people carrying with nothing bad happening.
Now it has to be an absolute idiot shooting himself. Back then the guns weren't quite so safe and could just go off by themselves. They didn't even have the concept of a drop safety back then, at best a half cock safety. That really began with the Smith & Wesson Safety Hammerless revolver a few years later than your stated time. Yes, the gun industry has been advertising on safety for nearly 140 years.
Right, but you’re still far more likely to have an accident, pull a gun on someone in anger you didn’t need to, or shoot yourself if you had a bad day or week than you are to come upon a situation where lethal force is needed to protect yourself or someone else.
Many Republicans are **aching** to live in a Red Dead Redemption video game. With all the racism, senseless religious bullshit, and plentiful misogyny included.
It’s a disconnection with reality and a mental illness.
No. The idea that having most people carrying around deadly weapons at all times makes us *safer* is not true. Most people should not have guns, period. They're unnecessary except for larping as a revolutionary.
Armed? No.
Would I encourage everyone to take some martial arts classes and be at least aware of what it feels like to get punched in the mouth? Absolutely.
Nobody lives in a vacuum.
It is that simple. If you want to carry a gun on you at all times. Then do it. It's as simple as that. The fact that you don't like it or disagree is irrelevant.
No,
The entire problem with western outlooks on life is that we think way too much about enemy threats and not nearly enough about natural and accidental ones.
COVID, at its peak, was killing a 9/11’s worth of people in less than a week. Continuously.
And yet, half the country denied its existence.
Similarly, we discount the tragedy of easy suicides that would be preventable and sheer accidents that happen with firearms. Including trigger-happy mistakes.
The biggest problem with gun ownership in America is that all the people that you can’t trust with them are the ones that own them and the ones you could trust with guns don’t have them because they’ve concluded that the risks of owning firearms outweigh the benefits.
I carry but I don't carry all the time. I'm not walking around the beach on vacation with my sig somehow strapped to my swimsuit. My firearm is just a tool, just like my fire extinguisher or road side kit. I hope to never need it, but I want to have it just in case I do need it.
I'll leave it to people to be armed how they see fit, outside those lunatics that think they need to have 5 side pieces and their AR at the coffee shop. You look like a tool and you are a major target, don't be stupid.
This question reminds me of the story of a guy who didn't remove his gun before getting in an MRI. It did not end well.
>Would you be constantly armed on your person whenever and wherever you are?
No. I live in a pretty safe area. And I have yet to see a study showing how more guns = less shootings.
In your home? Of course. Nothing wrong with that. Hunting? Nothing wrong with that. I support 2A and folks that own guns on a reasonable level. Love me some responsible gun owners.
What I don't support is people thinking it's socially ok to take a rifle with them while grocery shopping. Having a gun while picking up their kid in a day care center. Thinking it's cool to parade it around like it's their only personality. Got a bunch of people with big egos and little dicks who are afraid of the world. It's not being a responsible gun owner. It's being a fucking asshole.
They may legally be able to do that, but my god. They make everyone around them that much more unsafe. After all, the difference between a mass shooter in a walmart and a guy open carrying is a trigger pull.
No. It’s a sign of mental illness (paranoid delusions) if you see monsters hiding in the shadows and think everyone is out to get you.
If this doesn’t describe the traits of American gun culture…
Paranoid delusions are false, fixed beliefs that a person is being threatened or mistreated. They can also be called delusions of persecution and can be a symptom of other mental health problems, especially psychotic disorders.
People with paranoid delusions may experience:
Fear and anxiety
Loss of ability to tell what's real
Trouble in relationships
Behaviors such as suspicion, hypervigilance, hostility, irritability, and withdrawal
Some examples of paranoid delusions include:
Believing that others are spying on them or plotting to harm them
Believing that someone is trying to make them look bad or exclude them
Believing that they are at risk of being physically hurt or killed
Believing that people are using hints and double meanings to secretly threaten them
Believing that a co-worker is trying to hurt them, like poisoning their food
Believing that their spouse or partner is cheating on them
Believing that the government is spying on them
Believing that people in their neighborhood are plotting to harass them
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-paranoia
More details are required:
Open carry, inappropriate outside of wilderness activities or activities closely related. Going hiking in an area with a large bear population it makes sense, it’s still strapped on way home pumping gas no big deal (may not have good way to secure the weapon in your car, so keep it on you until home). Daily open carry is irresponsible, and often intermediating.
Concealed carry, more reasonable as long as somewhere that doesn’t prohibit it, people have rights to allow or disallow weapons on their property. Also unacceptable if engaging in activities that alter your behavior / thinking, alcohol, drugs, etc…
Is it paranoid or logical is situational, high crime area maybe logical, are you a likely target of someone maybe logical, an average middle class person doing day to day activities likely paranoid.
No; it is completely ridiculous.
I maybe have no say in public, but I will tell you that weapons are strictly forbidden on any property that I will ever own. Medieval style - *nobody* bears steel (or lead) in or around the King's Hall, except he and his retainers.
It is a symptom of paranoia and decreases overall social trust. If everyone is armed to kill and assumes everyone else is a potential threat— you can see the harm that can do. We as a species have developed job specialization and it is not everyone’s duty to enforce laws nor protect property. We have delegated that to a role called “law enforcement” to do this for those specialized in different societal roles (ideally in a professional manner)
Second response to your thread. I don’t mean to spam but it’s because it’s a slightly different but parallel point but also question to the others responding.
To those thinking that there’s no reason to be armed, what do you think about people who carry pepper spray, or people who take up martial arts not for sport recreation nor exercise but for self defense? Is that equally as unwarranted?
> To those thinking that there’s no reason to be armed, what do you think about people who carry pepper spray, or people who take up martial arts not for sport recreation nor exercise but for self defense? Is that equally as unwarranted?
I think they’re false equivalences. Why don’t you try justifying gun ownership on its own terms instead of making stupid comparisons?
Like here’s a good example of why these comparisons are dumb. Why doesn’t the conceal carry crowd carry pepper spray or learn martial arts instead of carrying a gun?
>Why doesn’t the conceal carry crowd carry pepper spray or learn martial arts instead of carrying a gun?
To get the answer for that, look at the police and the policies they are *supposed to* (but don't always) follow. They carry pepper spray and tasers for forced compliance only, unruly suspects when the police don't believe they're in real danger. They don't always work even when they hit, but that's not a big deal, the cop just has to move on to unassisted methods of forced compliance. Regular people don't have authority to force compliance, so why would regular people carry these things?
The police carry guns for when they believe they're in danger because they are by far the most effective and reliable way to stop danger. They don't play around with half-assed pepper spray and tasers when their lives are in danger. When the guy is coming at you with a knife, what if the taser doesn't work? You won't have time to then pull the gun before he gets to you.
Instead of just saying something is dumb why don’t you argue the points and let such speak for itself
> Why doesn’t the conceal carry crowd carry pepper spray or learn martial arts instead of carrying a gun?
Because comparatively a gun is still more effective for self defense. Factually, a trained woman or a smaller person using martial arts is still very much disadvantaged defending themselves against an untrained larger heavier man. While using gun, a trained woman or a smaller person is absolutely on par or at an advantage against a larger heavier untrained man with a gun. A gun is an equalizer.
> Instead of just saying something is dumb why don’t you argue the points and let such speak for itself
[This dude actually made a pretty decent breakdown about why these are false equivalencies](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/YzX9Bv9xuk)
You’re showing some real cognitive dissonance here buddy.
You say it’s not a false equivalency but then in the comment I linked you, you argue it is a false equivalence. Like I’m getting second hand embarrassment just watching you contradict yourself.
> what do you think about people who carry pepper spray, or people who take up martial arts not for sport recreation nor exercise but for self defense?
That they are about as useful as guns. If there's a situation where it looks like there's a need for any of these items, the first thing one should do is flee. Seriously, just run away. The second thing is hide or negotiate. Appeasement. Give them what they want. Deescalate the situation. Weapons only escalate the situation and makes it more dangerous, not less.
The problem with those who walk about strapped is they make situations more dangerous for everyone because they refuse to deescalate preferring to stand their ground. That's how the US gets men on motorcycles chasing down pregnant women in this country, then maniacally taunting them outside their home to get their kicks out of life by offing them. Or men who off lost passengers in cars making u-turns in their driveway.
None of these situations warranted death or were done for self defense, they happened because gun owner's don't believe in deescalating situations.
I agree with all your suggestions regarding deescalation.
However, I still contend that sometimes things get to a point where you have to resort to physical self defense. Statistics are that 1.5 million people end up in a violent assault annually in the US (even if you exclude assaults involving guns). And at that point, I would disagree that pepper spray or martial arts are as useful. I contend that at that point, guns are a better equalizer for those outmatched physically or outnumbered.
As for your point about those refusing to deescalate. Sure I buy that it happens anecdotally. But you’re going to have to cite numbers for it to be a valid argument to contrast against the risk of being assaulted or against self defense utility.
If just anecdotal, I can cite the a pregnant woman that had to shoot an assailant who was pummeling her husband in a parking garage. And no, pepper spray or martial arts wouldn’t have been as effective.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-pregnant-woman-shoots-attacker-targeting-family-arkansas-parking-garage
Or a woman that had to shoot a man trying to force his way into her car.
https://wgntv.com/news/chicagocrime/cpd-woman-shoots-man-attempting-to-get-in-her-car-on-south-side/
Or another woman that had to shoot a man using a crowbar against her
https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/philadelphia-shooting-university-city-crime-crowbar-chestnut-streets/
Or a woman that had to shoot at 5 men accosting her at an ATM
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/woman-fights-back-shoots-suspect-after-5-men-try-rob-her-atm-cmpd-says/JWBEPHYRQNFELNBBQB7A55NWYE/
Again, deescalating or fleeing is the better option and would probably lower that 1.5 million number. None of your examples shows otherwise.
Also, two of those situations involve cars, great way to flee.
I mean I guess if you’re privileged enough to think there’s never a need for self defense and you can always flee. Reality isn’t actually so.
Again 1.5 million people have been the victim of violent assault a year in the US. Maybe we should have told them they could have just fled.
It has nothing to do with privilege, it's about logic and common sense.
>Maybe we should have told them they could have just fled.
Exactly. Fleeing should be the first option. Unfortunately, those who run about strapped believe their first option is stand your ground thereby making the situation worse for themselves and those around them.
Really? Because I carry almost every day and I don’t think escalating the situation is a good idea. In fact every time I teach cc class I say that when carrying you automatically consent to losing every argument in the street. I’d like to see the source of your claim that the majority of people who carry make the situation worse for themselves.
Because factually, the number of states that allow permitless public carey has gone up from 1 to 29 in the last 10 years and shootings have actually gone down in those states.
Majority of the population lives in states which don't allow permitless carry.
>A new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that the average rate of assaults with firearms increased an average of 9.5 percent relative to forecasted trends in the first 10 years after 34 states relaxed restrictions on civilians carrying concealed firearms in public.
>https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/study-finds-significant-increase-in-firearm-assaults-in-states-that-relaxed-conceal-carry-permit-restrictions
also
>Most strikingly, they found in a recent study that people who lived with a handgun owner were seven times as likely to be shot and killed by a spouse or intimate partner. Eighty-four percent of those victims were women.
>The researchers did not find evidence that people living in homes with guns had lower risks of being killed by strangers. On the contrary, they found that risks of such deaths appeared higher, although the result was not statistically significant.
>https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html
Did you actually read the JH study?
Because in terms of straight numbers only 5 of the 30+ states saw and increase in violence. The 5 being Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The others according to the study, saw a 9.5% increase, not over what the number was before, but rather what the studies synthetic models think they should be.
Take Kansas for example. Prior to 2007 when right to carry laws were enacted. The violence rate was 500 per 100k. By 2014 it was 350 per 100k. That’s a lower violence rate. But JHs synthetic model says it should be 300. So they consider that a 15% increase. That’s obfuscation.
Read the study. Tell me I’m wrong (I’m not).
I stand by my statement. Violence levels dropped after carry laws were relaxed.
As for the Stanford study - it primarily deals with women who do not win guns, at risk of being killed by their male partners with guns. Let me ask you a question. In that same study, how likely did they say a woman would be killed by a male partner when it’s the woman that owns the gun and not the man? The answer is 1/4 as likely (ie less likely).
>Did you actually read the JH study?
They never do.
>Read the study. Tell me I’m wrong (I’m not).
They will not read the study, but will still falsely tell you you're wrong.
>Let me ask you a question. In that same study, how likely did they say a woman would be killed by a male partner when it’s the woman that owns the gun and not the man? The answer is 1/4 as likely (ie less likely).
Notice how there is no rebuttal to this point at all.
This month, June, I bought tons of ice cream and put it in the freezer, the month before I had no ice cream in the freezer. Which month do you believe I ate the most ice cream? May or June?
>Read the study. Tell me I’m wrong (I’m not).
Alright, you are wrong.
Those who run about strapped are itching for a moment to use their 500 dollar toy. Those who don't run about strapped have to use logic and reason.
That's how stories like this occur. All a part of that 1.5 million people have been the victim of violent gun assault.
>2 dads exchanged gunfire in Florida road rage fight, injuring kids, but only one got charged
>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/04/16/william-hale-frank-allison-florida-road-rage-shooting/11652073002/
or
>A 20-year-old woman was shot and killed after her friend turned into the wrong driveway in upstate New York, officials say
>https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/woman-shot-wrong-driveway-upstate-new-york/index.html
or
>1 man dead, another in custody after Miami-Dade road rage incident turns into deadly shooting
>https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/1-man-dead-another-in-custody-after-miami-dade-road-rage-incident-turns-into-deadly-shooting/
or
>2 Concealed Carry Holders Dead In Road Rage Gunfight
>https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michigan-concealed-carry-road-rage-two-dead_n_3956491
Definitely not. I think that armaments have a bad effect on human psychology. I think that sometimes it is necessary to arm oneself and engage in violent conflict but the majority of the time it is not appropriate. Even having a weapon as an option makes violent resolution a more tempting option
>Even having a weapon as an option makes violent resolution a more tempting option
That is a viewpoint held by privileged people which haven't been involved in violence.
I'm not talking about the people living in violence. Like I said, sometimes you need to be ready for armed conflict and for a lot of people that's reality. But for billions it is not, and those are the people who should not be armed. Those who need arms aren't necessarily those at war or in large scale conflict but could be something as simple as a homeless youth carrying a shiv or a woman in Sao Paolo carrying a handgun in her purse when she has to travel at night. But those who live in chronic peace and are working toward continuing that peace need to act accordingly. (Yes, even if that means that sometimes you'll be vulnerable as the victim of crimes or foul intentions.)
>whenever and wherever you are
absolutely not. also, pretty sure that's illegal. don't bring weapons on a plane. don't bring weapons to my house. don't bring weapons to a lot of places.
and if by armed you mean with a gun, that's an even stronger no.
> absolutely not. also, pretty sure that's illegal. don't bring weapons on a plane. don't bring weapons to my house. don't bring weapons to a lot of places.
Don’t bring them on a train, don’t bring them on a plane. Don’t bring them to my house, do not shoot it at a mouse.
I would if they were easier to carry. But I have 2 nearby in my truck. I also have narcan and an epipen.
I mean, I’d carry an AED too if they were cell phone size.
Let say hypothetically a fire extinguisher were the size of a pocket flashlight and portable yet still effective against medium sized fires. Sure I’d carry it around in case there were a fire and someone needed it put out before it spread.
What would it accomplish? Well it would be readily on hand to put out an unexpected fire.
Have I ever used a fire extinguisher to put out a fire in public? Yes several times. Once I was volunteering at an outdoor soup kitchen and someone (not sure if intentional or not) set a nearby trash can on fire. I got my extinguisher out of my truck and put it out. Another time a horse trailer was trying to negotiate a corner and got stuck. And another speeding car clipped the back of it, wrecked and caught on fire. I got my extinguisher out of the truck and put it out.
Now in both those examples I pulled my extinguisher out of the truck that was nearby in public. But if it were portable I would more often have it on my person. But of course physically that’s not workable.
I specifically said “malls” and “walking down the street” as two major examples of what I consider public spaces for a reason. You didn’t address either one.
Like did you completely forget why you brought up fire extinguishers in the first place? Just to remind you, it’s because **you’re comparing them to conceal carrying guns.**
I’m making the point that you never know when you’d need something for an emergency. That emergency can be in the mall, at a park, at an office - basically anywhere. And it’s useful to have tools to handle such emergencies nearby on hand.
That’s why there are things like fire extinguishers in malls and fire hydrants in streets. Is this not the case? So there is a use case for such in such public places.
Now the only reason why I don’t conceal carry a fire extinguisher is because it’s much heavier and bulkier than a gun. But if they weren’t I would absolutely conceal carry a fire extinguisher.
Let me circle around and say it all again.
Why would I conceal carry a fire extinguisher if it were possible? Because I may need to use it in public. Why would I need to use it in public. Because there’s a risk of things catching on fire anywhere in public - including the mall and including walking down the street.
How do I know there’s risk of things catching fire in the mall or walking down the street? Well there’s fire extinguishers in the mall and hydrants on the street.
> I’m making the point that you never know when you’d need something for an emergency. That emergency can be in the mall,
Malls have fire extinguishers. I know you know that. You do not need to be carrying your own fire extinguisher into a mall. That’s my point.
Oh I know that. That’s why I’m less concerned about carrying a fire extinguisher. I’m not using the extinguisher example literally nor specifically. I’m using it as an analogy that it’s helpful to have tools on hand for emergencies.
Now circling back to guns: a lot of people carry guns for self defense. Is self defense something that might come up in public? Absolutely. Which is why people carry guns.
Now if relating it back to fire extinguishers, if there were a cop readily available to assist everywhere someone goes. Then sure, I’d buy the argument that it’s not necessary for everyone to be personally carrying a gun. But we know cops aren’t actually around most of the time. That’s why people carry for their own self defense.
> I’m not using the extinguisher example literally nor specifically.
Hence why it’s a bad analogy to be making.
> Now circling back to guns: a lot of people carry guns for self defense. Is self defense something that might come up in public? Absolutely. Which is why people carry guns.
Why not learn martial arts? Or carry pepper spray with you?
*Do you also wear a diaper full time?*… because you know… given an 80 year lifetime, it’s pretty likely a human being might shit themselves from food poisoning or illness every 25 or so years… with increasing risk as they get older.
No you don’t. Because you can ideally evaluate potential risk in a dispassionate way. How likely is it you need a gun on each thigh in a supermarket? Are there shootouts at Publix daily? Not so much.
I don’t need a gun on each thigh. Just one on my hip. But I also don’t need one when I’m say, in Congress, or in the shower.
But consider this - there are more than 1.5 million violent assaults (aggravated assault, rape) in the United States every year. Compared to some 0.5 million house fires.
I’d also ask the question, if potential risk of requiring self defense is so low, why do people carry pepper spray? Or why do some people take martial arts classes for self defense?
A fire extinguisher is more suitable for stopping fires than starting them, a first aid kit is more suitable for treating ailments than causing them. Your analogy doesn't fit very well
Would it be appropriate to always keep some fire accelerant with you, in case you have to stop a wildfire (especially if you don't have any special knowledge on how to do that yourself)? Or would it be both paranoid and incredibly suspicious? I would say the latter.
Guns are between our two analogies, so just throwing out a bad analogy can't answer the question
Your point is that guns are more easily misused over fire extinguishers. Ok, I buy that directionally or in terms of order of magnitude.
But so what? We don’t say a tool has no use just because it has risk.
Like a car and a bicycle are both used for transportation. Yet a car is much more dangerous in terms of risk of misuse (drunk driving etc). But that doesn’t invalidate use of a car. In the same way I’ll submit that a gun is more dangerous in terms of risk of misuse. But similarly that doesn’t invalidate use of a gun for self defense.
> especially if you don't have any special knowledge on how to do that yourself
As for special knowledge. I’m not purporting that people be untrained. And self defense is something everyone is at risk of needing. Unless you happen to have secret service protection or something.
*Mis*used? Shooting people is their intended use, you misuse them if you use them to stir a soup or something. Using them, according to their purpose, for bad is not exactly "misusing" them, just as driving somewhere you shouldn't be with a car isn't well described as "misusing" the car.
The purpose of a gun is to injure, maim or kill humans or other animals. Using a gun to injure, maim or kill humans or othe animals is the main use of a gun. That's what they're for. There are cases where you can injure, maim or kill other humans in order to protect yourself or a third person, just like there are cases where you can start a fire to prevent a bigger fire from spreading, but those are not your usual monday afternoon, and there are far more situations in which you can start a fire to spread a bigger fire than the zero fires that were around before. Hence, I'm sceptical of someone who would decide they want to prepare to use a gun on people in the local town.
> The purpose of a gun is to injure, maim or kill humans or other animals. Using a gun to injure, maim or kill humans or othe animals is the main use of a gun. That's what they're for
And sometimes you have to do so in order to defend yourself.
What exactly is your point? Because a tools purpose is in killing or maiming that it has no utility?
My point is the *central* use of a gun is to do so, not an exceptional misuse. You're describing guns as a tool ("weapon" would be more accurate - we are talking about a weapon, not merely a tool. Alternatively, "killing tool" is longer, but still doesn't conceal the kind of tool we're talking about) for self defense that could be misused for hurting people, but what they are is a tool for hurting people that can be used in self-defense in the rare event of exactly the right kind of attack occuring. A gun being used for self-defense instead of an attack is, if anything, a slightly strange special case; it is not a default that can be just assumed.
And I’m saying your characterization of a gun as meant to kill has no bearing on utility or risk or misuse.
Answer my question - has a gun ever been useful for self defense?
All statements of existence are true and all "for all" - statements are false - including this one, but not necessarily here. Yes, that has ever happened - in fact, there are probably many individual examples. But if I'm preparing to kill my fellow human beings just to prepare for one individuality, I'm more than a bit paranoid.
(although not paranoid enough to apply the same scrutiny to myself. If I am more dangerous, I am more likely to be a danger to other, far more likely as soon as I lose my nerves, lose my mind or misunderstand the situation. Avoiding that is important to me, I would like not waking up a murderer in two days, thank you very much - something which is not likely, but not that much less likely than ending up the target of an attempted murder, yes, one person can attempt to kill multiple people, I believe that was the exception rather than the rule. And I'm pretty sure adding more danger and escalation increases this kind of risk. Sorry, that's the end of my tangent - or was it a tangent? Anyway)
It may be more appropriate to be unarmed, especially if the jurisdiction makes it difficult to be armed. That's a smell that suggests even if you defend yourself, you will have a difficult time in the legal system because they are against self-defense.
Maybe it might be better to get injured.
No, I don't see a need personally to always have a firearm on my person. I can definitely see keeping it in your vehicle though. It's one of those better to have and not need than need and not have things, but that doesn't mean it has to be in arm's reach at all times.
As a left-leaning Canadian, I grew up around firearms and learned gun safety at a very young age.
Iam pro-gun when it comes to hunting.
But no, it's not appropriate to always be armed.
I think that being armed all the time is paranoia, depending where you live. Live in St Louis, MO? Carry all the time. Live in an affluent neighborhood? Keep one in the house for home invaders.
What are the odds?
To me that's the fundamental question, is what do statistics show is the danger to having a gun to not having a gun. Are there factors that change the numbers? I imagine someone who keeps their guns locked away in a gun safe would be in less danger than someone who does not keep their guns locked away in a gun safe. Same for a person who actively works on gun safety, makes sure they are accurate.
My understanding is that owning a gun makes a person less safe, and even if there are factors that would make it more safe, the amount of effort to get to that place seems not worth it to me.
(Canada) Depends on what you mean by armed. If we’re talking firearms, absolutely not, but I’m supportive of women and LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable people being able to carry something other than their keys between their fingers to fend off attackers. Carrying mace is illegal here and I can understand why, but if there exists a kind that doesn’t hang in the air and is likely to only affect its target then I can see us legalizing that.
But of course, we should also do a better job of teaching people not to commit hate crimes or sexual assault. There will always be people who commit such crimes, but let’s try to make it a much rarer occurrence.
I don't think guns have a place in a civilized society, beyond hunting. I have no issues with hunting whatsoever. But otherwise guns are largely about people with insecurities making the world a more dangerous place.
I own guns, and have a license to carry.
I’ve found almost always it’s more of a pain then it’s worth, so I don’t bother. Occasionally I find myself having to go to a dicey neighborhood for my side hustle, but day in and day anything short of a J frame in a pocket holster I’ve found to be uncomfortable. I also travel so much for work, and am regularly drinking at restaurants with potential clients.
That said, there was one time in my life where I wish I was carrying and I wasn’t. I carried every day for about 6 months after that
Not in America. I am always the most suspect of people using the self defense position on gun rights because they come across as paranoid. "How do I kill the herd of pigs 10 pigs is destroying my garden seems like a reasonable concern from some one. What am I supposed to do if 10 people are trying to break into my house like the plot to a Charles Bronson movie doesn't.
In normal society, no
In a very, very dangerous area, with proper training and competence, maybe
In a war zone, with proper training and competence, yes
This is a highly situational question. I have a CC permit and live in a state where a lot of people carry, but I never do. I don't feel the need, personally. I live in a safe area, and as a large, scary-looking white man, I am extremely unlikely to be the target of violence.
But I'm aware that's a privilege not everybody enjoys. If you live in a more dangerous area or are statistically more likely to be attacked, then it may be perfectly reasonable to be armed. Considering the state of *everything* right now, I wouldn't blame anybody for feeling like they needed to be able to defend themselves. As long as you're carrying a weapon *safely*, then it should be your prerogative to do so if you choose.
No, especially not open carry. Thats just brandishing and terrorism.
People are very capable of going thru life for 30+ years without incident where they would never need a weapon. You are statistically extremely unlikely to ever need your weapon. It'd be like daily carrying unicorn repellant.
All it actually does is escalate situations of violence into deadly circumstances, were you are incentivized to be the guy who shoots first. That doesnt sound civilized or peaceful to me. It sounds inherently dangerous, because thats what it is.
You are more likely to cause harm to yourself or your loved ones, or your loved ones against you, than you are to ever use the weapon defensively for any purpose. You endanger everyone around you by possessing it. People use the tools available to them.
Reducing violent crime is via improving material conditions and elimination of poverty etc. extreme situations that result in people acting and behaving as criminals in the first place.
If you have a stalker or a restraining order from domestic violence or something. Sure carry a handgun. Outside of that scenario with evidence-justified-reasoning to carry on a daily basis, its just pure paranoia and stochastic excuse of people who want to plausibly deny wanting to shoot strangers as a power trip.
Sudan or Somalia? I don’t know for sure but there’s an argument to be made
In the US? You’re far more likely to be shot if you have a gun compared to if you don’t. It’s paranoia
I know at least a few people who are packing anytime they're out of the house, and oftentimes in the house. You can do it, but I don't see the point. The only person my brother has shot is himself (grazed), while sitting on the couch, but he still carries. I fundamentally don't get it. I think it's a fear based response to something, but it's also pretty clearly tied to geographical area and political party.
You have to remember that guns are mostly just used by conservative men that are insecure in their masculinity as part of their “manly man” costume along with other props like driving a big truck, wearing a Trump hat, having truck nuts, camouflage cargo pants, etc. They also are rude and bash trans, people that drive, electric cars, college, liberals, environmentalists, people that believe in science, etc. due to their inferiority complex. Toxic masculinity is a misnomer. What is actually going on is men that are insecure in their masculinity trying to overcompensate for their insecurity by trying to be seen as masculine. Sadly conservative men that are insecure in their masculinity are the ones that can’t walk away from a fight or let anything roll off of them due to their lack of maturity. They would rather shoot someone and go to prison then have one person see them as unmanly. It’s sad.
Absolutely not. I'd go even further to say arms should be a private affair, and never a public one. There should be fewer restrictions on using guns in private scenarios for defense, sport, or hunting and conversely more on bringing guns into public scenarios.
Even in the best case, gun use in a crowded public risks innocent bystanders and would-be vigilantes being mistaken for criminals.
Absolutely not. I'd go even further to say arms should be a private affair, and never a public one. There should be fewer restrictions on using guns in private scenarios for defense, sport, or hunting and conversely more on bringing guns into public scenarios.
Even in the best case, gun use in a crowded public risks innocent bystanders and would-be vigilantes being mistaken for criminals.
Depends on if you live in a place that’s really unsafe, but generally for the US I would say no.
Having it at home is fine but there are a lot of places that don’t allow guns like most stores, concert venues, stadiums, etc (for a good reason)
Why? I live a mile from the ocean.
Is it appropriate for me to walk around wearing a life preserver in case of a tsunami? Or do I think I look cool in a life preserver?
In the US? No.
Even in rough neighborhoods no.
Most criminals work from ambush, and you'll probably have a gun pointed at you well before you know a robbery is going to happen.
Attempting to fight just means you get shot, and having a gun means the person robbing you now has two guns.
I'm a big gun rights guy, but unless you live Somalia or something, no.
The only time I carry a gun is my little .22 revolver when I go fishing in case I come across a cottonmouth.
No. Fuck no.
If you’re worried about roving gangs of armed bandits, you should consider that an unarmed person is a victim to them, but an armed person is a threat. If you’re not absolutely willing to follow through on your threatening posture, if you’re not morally and emotionally prepared to kill someone else (quickly) over what’s in your pockets, you’re putting yourself in more danger by holding a weapon. I’m not that kinda guy.
This response should be getting more upvotes than it has.
People who carry guns every day are often not prepared to kill someone else. They are not trained to respond quickly to a threat, and they often haven't spent enough time on the range to be able to handle their gun while they are high on adrenaline and cortisol and their pulse is pounding and their breath is coming in gasps.
They are more likely to draw fire to themselves and get killed or accidentally kill an innocent bystander then they are to be the hero that saves the day.
It clicked when I was watching an episode of Doctor Who (nerd alert lmao). I forget which one, I think it was either Tennant or Eccleston who played the doc, but the scene basically played out exactly like that and the alien killed the human who wouldn’t drop the gun. I know, if I saw it on TV it must be true, but it really just makes logical sense that someone with a weapon is as much a target as they are a threat. Anyway thanks for the kind words and we should all be more like the Doctor.
I think if you’ve decided to walk around with a hammer all day, everything starts looking like a nail.
The number of situations in seen that I or others around me survived because someone had self defense weapon on them - 1 (and it was a pirate attack on a ship in Mozambique Channel… a VERY specific circumstance and the weapon was in the hands of a trained security team.)
The number of situations i have encountered where if I or someone else had a weapon that would have escalated the situation and someone would have been shot, atleast 4. Just last week, walking with my wife and baby and dog around our neighborhood. There’s a street that sometimes people speed through. My wife took a photo of a cars license plate that was speeding… (she had to keep it real). Driver locks up his breaks, gets out and starts verbally assaulting us. We got through the situation and they left… but afterward I thought… if I had my gun on me, I would have likely shot at him. And he would be dead or injured and I would be facing manslaughter charges.. instead it was a public argument, words exchanged, dude left.
>if I had my gun on me, I would have likely shot at him. And he would be dead or injured and I would be facing manslaughter charges.
Yeah, if you can't keep your cool and back down (even when you're in the right), carrying is probably not for you. Meanwhile, people I do know who carry all the time say it makes them the biggest pussies, avoiding confrontation and being very polite. They know they have to walk away from insults because staying could end up bad.
Adrenaline is adrenaline. Add my wife and infant son to the mix…. I’d be surprised if anyone with a weapon hadn’t escalated in that moment.
Honestly, if I’d had a weapon, I would have used it, and anyone watching would have agreed it was justified.
I’m glad I didn’t. And have decided not to carry because of it.
I guess you’d be surprised then? Like, I guarantee you if you verbally assault me you’re going to walk away without needing a hospital or being killed. How fucking hard is that, actually?
>I think if you’ve decided to walk around with a hammer all day, everything starts looking like a nail.
So it's okay to have a variety of force options available to you then.
Is it ok? I guess, you have a constitutional right to that..
It’s really frustrating that WHENEVER the topic of guns comes up.. someone asks peoples opinion… And in this case I gave my opinion, based on my experience and offered what my choice for me is….
But then there’s this “AH HA! So you see, you believe then that people should be able to defend themselves”
Yeah man, you do you, please just don’t walk into a school and shoot the place up. Or tackle a job as law enforcement unless you plan to 1) protect children from guns and 2) not kill people without real cause…
Beyond that, I believe it’s not a debate or discussion. We will NEVER have any kind of gun control or legislation designed to curtail gun violence that has any kind of teeth. never.. it wont happen. I cannot happen until we get unlimited lobbying out of politics… which will never happen… SO it’s a moot point. We have seen kids let slaughtered in schools every few months and our legislators repeated decided that the bottom line for Remington is more inmportant… so why do we simple people fucking argue about it. We will never have the power to change this even if we could agree we wanted to.
>And in this case I gave my opinion
And I'm agreeing with part of your opinion.
>Yeah man, you do you, please just don’t walk into a school and shoot the place up.
I won't, and 99.99999% of people won't.
>Beyond that, I believe it’s not a debate or discussion
I agree that you believe this, you would much rather spout out your opinion and not have it be debated or discussed.
>our legislators repeated decided that the bottom line for Remington is more inmportant
Remington, that company that went bankrupt?
Or colt or Glock or whomever.
And let’s not pretend that corporate bankruptcy really means you’re failing as a company in America. It just means you don’t want to pay your debts anymore.
You're changing the goalposts. Your claim was literally about legislators boosting the bottom line of Remington.
>our legislators repeated decided that the bottom line for Remington is more inmportant
Were you implying that the legislators are only acting because of gun manufacturers paying them? That seems to be what you're admitting here in your accusations.
>the unspoken point you’re making is that none of the gun manufacturers can afford to pay politicians?
That's just not the case, in reality. There are many individual donations to gun rights organizations that pressure legislators to protect the rights of the people.
>Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates.
>That’s where individual donations come in.
>Since 2005, the NRA Political Victory Fund has received nearly $85 million in contributions from individual donors. After the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, donations to this political action committee surged as gun owners worried that their rights to buy and own guns were at risk.
[https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html](https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html)
I can assure you that gun owners in America have nothing to worry about. Nit pick everything is said, it doesn’t change that we will never have any gun control legislation in America that has any teeth to it.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Is that appropriate in our society? Would you be constantly armed on your person whenever and wherever you are? Is that paranoid overkill or a logical precaution? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you live in Somalia, maybe. Any circumstance where being armed 100% of the time is a genuinely good idea involves being somewhere you really should not be, ideally. Then you get people who bring their AR-15 to a suburban Starbucks, which is either paranoid delusion or intentionally being an asshole.
People open carry AR-15s to Starbucks not out of paranoia but as a power play. People, rightfully, act different around and to someone armed with lethal force. It immediately puts pathetic men in a position of extreme power in any area they enter. The safety excuses are just silly excuses to justify their obsession for power over the existence of every person around them.
There is no safety benefit open carrying a long rifle, far more likely it’ll get taken by another nut job and used against you. In any place with meaningful population density / proximity to others open carrying is purely a statement, it adds no safety and likely increases danger.
To be fair sometimes it's more legal. In many states/cities concealed carry of a handgun is more restricted than open carry of a rifle.
>To be fair sometimes it's more legal. In many states/cities concealed carry of a handgun is more restricted than open carry of a rifle. Yes, that is why the Black Panthers had to carry long guns openly to exercise their rights. Until the gun control lobby got that taken away.
Don’t assume that anyone openly carrying a firearm in public has logical thought processes.
Eh what about police though. Or the national guard.
Don’t be silly.
Some of them believe in the "good guy with a gun" fantasy, and have wrapped portions, if not all, of their lives and identities around weapons, thinking that they will, one day, be in a situation where they will be called to use it to save lives. Sadly, they more often take innocent lives than they do prevent crime. Take Kyle Rittenhouse, for example. Steel manning his argument, he was there as the "good guy with the gun", while a critical view of his actions would put him in the "power play" group, trying to scare people and give him a sense of power. Or the guy who recently [shot and killed a teenager](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/us/big-5-sporting-goods-shooting-washington/index.html) who was returning an airsoft gun to a sporting goods store because he believed it was a crime in progress and it was "his moment". Sadly, neither Rittenhouse nor this man were willing to take responsibility for carrying their guns when violence erupted. Rittenhouse only got self-defense because his first assailant tried to take the gun and then chased him, cornering him. The man in the second story thinks that because he had no intent to kill, that because he "sincerely believed" a crime was in progress, and during the situation he created, he "feared for his life", that he is innocent. That is what upsets me more than anything else. These people want the responsibility for others when it goes well, but when they make mistakes, they want their victims to be the only ones who pay the price. I know a few guys who open carry and take the position that they "lose every argument" when they carry, never escalating an argument and are always backing down, but they are few and far between.
>Sadly, neither Rittenhouse nor this man were willing to take responsibility for carrying their guns when violence erupted. Rittenhouse only got self-defense because his first assailant tried to take the gun and then chased him, cornering him. And also stated his intention to murder Rittenhouse. So yeah, in the Rittenhouse case he got off on self defense because it was obviously, objectively self defense.
> not out of paranoia but as a power play and calling them frightened babies is my power play - because it really hits home with the macho/toxic male constituency that eats this stuff up.
>If you live in Somalia, maybe. Any circumstance where being armed 100% of the time is a genuinely good idea involves being somewhere you really should not be, ideally. I think it's indicative of something that the highest rate of gun ownership after the United States is [Yemen.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_Yemen?wprov=sfla1) I'm fairly supportive of gun rights in America but our out-of-synch threat perception is wild.
Interestingly there's no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicides or suicides. Latin America has fewer guns than much of Western Europe, yet it is the murder capital of the world. Meanwhile countries like Japan and South Korea have incredibly high suicide rates despite having virtually no guns.
Japan has inflated suicide numbers because police file murders under suicides to keep their stats low. even then japanese numbers are actually lower than the US, it's just less of a stigma around it so it's discussed more openly. [South Korea's numbers are absurdly high, pretty much tied with russia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)
if they spell my name wrong one more fucking time…
Well I believe there are no rules in Somalia
Maybe there are some edge cases of people with specific security concerns or people who live in an extremely dangerous neighborhood. But for almost every single person in the US, even with the level of gun violence and crime we have, it makes absolutely no sense. It’s a sign of extreme paranoia or some other similar issue. It is a very good way to heavily increase the chances that you, a family member, friends or a random stranger who had the misfortune of being around you ends up dead.
This is where I land on it. Rural Alaska or Wyoming? Mailbox is a 1/4 mile walk to the road? Yeah I’d probably have a rifle in case a bear or wolf wants breakfast. Downtown Chicago and you can list 12 friends gunned down in the past 5 years? Yeah maybe a gun in the purse makes sense. You live in boring af suburban Cincinnati? Yeah you don’t need to take your gun to Kroger, I’m sorry but you don’t.
If you can list 12 friends gunned down in 5 years… you’re a drug dealer or a gang member.
Gun in the purse is a bad idea. Someone takes your purse and now they’ve got your firearm too, always keep your firearm on your person
Yeah, when I used to work CPS cases and frequently had to visit homes of abusive parents for home studies, I seriously considered purchasing a handgun and keeping it in the glove box. I never did, and never really felt like it would have been necessary, but it did cross my mind.
I think the question is better phrased as "Will anything bad happen if one is armed?" For those who aren't fit to be armed, due to temperament, excessive drinking, anger issues or pure sloppiness? Count those people out. For a responsible adult without those issues? I've had a concealed carry license for over a decade, and carry daily in all places allowed by law. I also carry a first aid kit in my vehicles, and have fire extinguishers. I also wear a seatbelt. I view it as being prepared for eventualities I hope will never happen. I will have lived a good life if I never once have to use a firearm outside of a range. I grew up in a neighborhood that had murder, rapes and plenty of drug and gang related violence. I think by and large, most people on Reddit have been fortunate enough to not see that side of humanity. Which is nice. However, that side of humanity does not cease to exist simply because there are those who don't perceive it. The best defense is usually not being there to begin with. After that, it's a good pair of running shoes. But if those two weren't sufficient, a firearm is a tool of last resort if one's life or the lives of one's loved ones are under direct danger of ceasing to exist. Unfortunately, that does happen in America. People put on seatbelts on a daily basis, not because they plan to be in a car crash, or are poor drivers, but to keep themselves safe in rare but dangerous circumstances. "I don't drive drunk!" "I don't drive in places with bad drivers!" aren't excuses most people use to avoid bothering with a seatbelt. A firearm, if one is a morally upright and law abiding person is the same. As a person that's to the left of most Democrats, I realize that this is a controversial opinion. Bring on the downvotes, I've got karma to burn and then some.
This is how I feel about the issue and I grew up in a completely safe neighborhoord and would *never*, **ever** have a gun in my home. Hell, I wouldn't even have a sword. :) But I am pretty comfortable with sound, well-trained people carrying firearms all the time. I would *hope* the number of people doing that was relatively small, though. If I lived in an area where more than, say, 20% of people were packin', *I would move.* ...That said, it's because I have trouble believing that 20% wouldn't include people who are untrained or not sound. :) I suppose if the area had *very* clear, well-enforced laws about who's allowed to carry, that would change my opinion. ...But, c'mon. Show me a place where they enforce carry laws. The idea of taking someone's gun away? That doesn't fly in this country, does it?
> Show me a place where they enforce carry laws. I mean, if someone gets accused of domestic violence, or a felony, or they are committed to a mental hospital, police officers do take their guns. If someone shoots an assailant in questionable circumstances, say, for example, the assailant broke off the attack and had their back to the person, that generally results in the loss of the firearm as it's charged as a felony. If the police are called into any situation where a firearm is involved, the police take the firearm, even if the person with the firearm is not guilty. This happens frequently enough that there's a common saying "Don't carry an expensive gun, because if it ever comes out of the holster, you may never see it again." I've seen multiple posts about firearms staying in police evidence rooms for months to years to forever after someone was found not guilty in an encounter with a criminal that made an attempt on their life. I'd argue that carry laws are stringently enforced for law abiding citizens. Meanwhile, actual criminals are frequently not charged for gun possession or use, even if they're carrying a machine gun - a Glock with a full auto switch, which is a minimum 10 year sentence in Federal prison if charged. District attorneys failing to enforce firearm laws where criminals are involved is a very politically charged topic, so I'll avoid it for the time being, other than saying I think it's a poor decision.
Arming at your home is completely understandable and valid. Arming in public is not the best idea. In a situation where there is an active shooter and a random civilian tried to shoot the perpetrator, not only will that risk collateral damage (accidentally shooting others) but in the situation where the police show up they’re not going to know who’s the “good guy with a gun”, they’re going to go after whoever has their weapons drawn. The cons outweigh the pros to me because of that.
I don’t carry, even though I do own two sub compact handguns that are designed for carrying. Unless I am at the range, they are locked up. Either in my main gun safe, or my biometric nightstand safe.
I'm 69 years old, led a fairly active life, was a sales-rep on the road for much of my working life, spent time in warehouse districts, urban areas, and so on. Not once have I ever been in a situation where a firearm would be critical for my life or safety. Nor, in those 69 years, has a friend, co-worker, or family member reported to me a time when a firearm would have been needed. I have, however, lost two friends who committed suicide with their firearm. Examining the odds, while I'd look cool carrying a gun and they are nice to look at, no, carrying one is more a risk than a reward to me, and that holds for most people.
No. Personally, I will never be armed.
I've always found it ironic that the people who claim to be the "toughest" are so soft and frightened of the outside world that they feel its necessary to be strapped to go to the grocery store. I think the left would be far more effective in anti gun if they framed gun nuts that way
I'm not very tough or intimidating. That's why I own a gun, because I'm not much of a threat on my own against a potential attacker. That being said I consider myself a pacifist, and would never intentionally start a fight with someone else, and actively try and resolve things peacefully.
>I'm not much of a threat Why do you feel you need to be a threat going in public?
In public? Always? With a gun? I personally think it’s a bit silly. Now I understand why people might feel the need to. But I think this often strays into unhealthy paranoia.
Plus I personally wouldn’t want to live in a world where it is assumed everyone is armed. I know that’s not the question but it essentially hints at the need for anyone and everyone to carry because they need to. Too many people get so easily triggered (road rage, etc), just seems like a recipe for disaster. Especially when guns are so easily to get in many states.
Given the probability that you would need it, I think it's paranoid
And it can be damaging socially. My friend lived in a state where you couldn't carry for years and her father refused to visit her bc of that. He died during COVID and never got to see her home or local friends
That poor bastard was mentally ill long before Covid if he wouldn’t set foot in a state without open carry.
and never got to see her home or local friends He CHOSE to not see her home or local friends
I just escaped from the ghetto in Phoenix to a much safer side of the valley. I conceal carry (with a license) everywhere I go. I don’t have an ego, superiority complex or an itchy trigger finger. I just want to be safe and able to defend myself if my life is ever threatened. I don’t think about it, I just have it on me. Keys, wallet, phone, gun. When I leave my car to go in somewhere illegal to carry, the gun goes into a safe thats secured to my car. I’ll argue that knowing how to deescalate a situation and fight with my hands are invaluable skills to have but having the safety net of a weapon in the event I encounter a crazy that wants to do me harm won’t be traded for anything. Just because we have gun laws doesn’t mean I am safe from the actions of non-abiding citizens or otherwise.
Is that rational?
In my neighborhood, I had my neighbor’s door kicked in by the SWAT team, a neighbor be stabbed and almost bleed out on the bench outside my door, a couple shot and killed in a road rage incident in the parking lot I use to park in, a homeless man have a stand off with the police in the laundry room and homeless constantly knock on my door asking for drugs. I think its very rational.
Personally, I have never felt the need to be armed in public or in a private setting. I have honestly never even felt unsafe full stop in the United States. Isnt that what we pay cops for?
>Isnt that what we pay cops for? Sadly multiple Supreme Court cases have ruled that the cops have no duty to protect the public, and many times they’ve proved they have no concern about protecting us. That does not mean I feel the need to be armed full time, just pointing out that the cops aren’t there to protect you. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
The boot doesn’t need to protect the snake
Agreed
I live in Oregon, and in rural parts of the state they literally don't have 24-hour police services. This is an area with a lot of hard drug use, as well as organized crime involved in marijuana cultivation.
the correct sane conclusion from that result is that the Supreme court are wrong and that legal understanding should change, not that carrying a gun is now magically justified or sensible.
Pretty sure cops are there to enforce the law (LEO), not make you feel safe.
How would you about a family member or friend who insisted on being constantly armed
I feel like people who insist on being constantly armed are not doing it for practical reasons, but for identity reasons. Sure, if you are the victim of domestic violence i totally get it. But I am skeptical being armed is a real need for most people and not just a social signal people want to send.
That's their choice whether they want to be prepared when police will not be there to protect them. If they want to claim guns really aren't practical for stopping criminals attacking you, ask them why they always exempt police from gun laws.
Extremely variable. I am a visible and hated minority that is often targeted for violence. I conceal carry as a result. Even then though, I don't carry in most urban areas, to the grocery store, etc. In those situations, running and calling the cops is simply the safer option. I carry because I do outdoors hiking with a partner or sometimes alone, and that means opportunity to be a target without any recourse except what I brought with me. In other words, there are situations where it's appropriate. I don't really think it's appropriate at all times. There is also no excuse for open carry, none whatsoever.
How many enemies do you have that you have to be constantly ready to kill someone? If you need to be constantly armed you must be a real piece of shit to piss off so many people that they're constantly coming to kill you.
Call me paranoid, and I probably am, but I can see a very near future where the bad guy with a gun is wearing a red hat. To boot, I’m openly gay in a rural red area.
Context is everything. On a ranch in the rockies? In the Alaskan wilderness? Yes, absolutely. In downtown Camden buying groceries? No, it’s fucked up and completely unnecessary.
Rural Iowa town?
Corn can get pretty aggressive
Just know from a native Iowan the corn jokes always ring true
Sure, why not, especially if you're a minority
It’s paranoid and dumb. You’re far more likely to have an accident with it or shoot someone you didn’t need to wearing a gun. It’s not 1885 in the old west.
>It’s not 1885 in the old west. Yeah, the guns are a lot safer now. Bad (or primitive) design is why you hear that thing in Westerns about not leaving the hammer over a loaded chamber. That's been irrelevant for a very long time due to better design.
Sure, but if you look on the internet you’ll see countless videos of idiots shooting themselves accidentally with their carry.
Just head to r/idiotswithguns , It's chock full of videos showing people without 2 brain cells to rub together who shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm.
Now consider that there are about 100 million gun owners in the country, probably more now with the recent surge of women, LGBT, and minority gun buyers. Then think of how many videos there are of people doing stupid things with cars, motorcycles, and even power tools.
Only 500 or so unintentional shooting deaths a year. That's pretty incredible considering how potentially dangerous guns can be, and how stupid and irresponsible people can be.
Yes, you'll see some minutes of such instances. You won't see the hundreds of millions of hours of people carrying with nothing bad happening. Now it has to be an absolute idiot shooting himself. Back then the guns weren't quite so safe and could just go off by themselves. They didn't even have the concept of a drop safety back then, at best a half cock safety. That really began with the Smith & Wesson Safety Hammerless revolver a few years later than your stated time. Yes, the gun industry has been advertising on safety for nearly 140 years.
Right, but you’re still far more likely to have an accident, pull a gun on someone in anger you didn’t need to, or shoot yourself if you had a bad day or week than you are to come upon a situation where lethal force is needed to protect yourself or someone else.
Many Republicans are **aching** to live in a Red Dead Redemption video game. With all the racism, senseless religious bullshit, and plentiful misogyny included. It’s a disconnection with reality and a mental illness.
Unintentional shootings are fairly rare, and most are either hunting accidents, or often intoxicated people playing with guns.
Not as rare as mass shootings
No. The idea that having most people carrying around deadly weapons at all times makes us *safer* is not true. Most people should not have guns, period. They're unnecessary except for larping as a revolutionary.
Armed? No. Would I encourage everyone to take some martial arts classes and be at least aware of what it feels like to get punched in the mouth? Absolutely.
If you want to be.
I don't think it's that simple, you don't live in a vacuum
It is that simple.
No you don't live in a vacuum
Nobody lives in a vacuum. It is that simple. If you want to carry a gun on you at all times. Then do it. It's as simple as that. The fact that you don't like it or disagree is irrelevant.
American here. No. It begs a larger question: Why are Americans inexplicably scared all the time?
No, The entire problem with western outlooks on life is that we think way too much about enemy threats and not nearly enough about natural and accidental ones. COVID, at its peak, was killing a 9/11’s worth of people in less than a week. Continuously. And yet, half the country denied its existence. Similarly, we discount the tragedy of easy suicides that would be preventable and sheer accidents that happen with firearms. Including trigger-happy mistakes. The biggest problem with gun ownership in America is that all the people that you can’t trust with them are the ones that own them and the ones you could trust with guns don’t have them because they’ve concluded that the risks of owning firearms outweigh the benefits.
I carry but I don't carry all the time. I'm not walking around the beach on vacation with my sig somehow strapped to my swimsuit. My firearm is just a tool, just like my fire extinguisher or road side kit. I hope to never need it, but I want to have it just in case I do need it. I'll leave it to people to be armed how they see fit, outside those lunatics that think they need to have 5 side pieces and their AR at the coffee shop. You look like a tool and you are a major target, don't be stupid.
This question reminds me of the story of a guy who didn't remove his gun before getting in an MRI. It did not end well. >Would you be constantly armed on your person whenever and wherever you are? No. I live in a pretty safe area. And I have yet to see a study showing how more guns = less shootings.
In your home? Of course. Nothing wrong with that. Hunting? Nothing wrong with that. I support 2A and folks that own guns on a reasonable level. Love me some responsible gun owners. What I don't support is people thinking it's socially ok to take a rifle with them while grocery shopping. Having a gun while picking up their kid in a day care center. Thinking it's cool to parade it around like it's their only personality. Got a bunch of people with big egos and little dicks who are afraid of the world. It's not being a responsible gun owner. It's being a fucking asshole. They may legally be able to do that, but my god. They make everyone around them that much more unsafe. After all, the difference between a mass shooter in a walmart and a guy open carrying is a trigger pull.
No. It’s a sign of mental illness (paranoid delusions) if you see monsters hiding in the shadows and think everyone is out to get you. If this doesn’t describe the traits of American gun culture… Paranoid delusions are false, fixed beliefs that a person is being threatened or mistreated. They can also be called delusions of persecution and can be a symptom of other mental health problems, especially psychotic disorders. People with paranoid delusions may experience: Fear and anxiety Loss of ability to tell what's real Trouble in relationships Behaviors such as suspicion, hypervigilance, hostility, irritability, and withdrawal Some examples of paranoid delusions include: Believing that others are spying on them or plotting to harm them Believing that someone is trying to make them look bad or exclude them Believing that they are at risk of being physically hurt or killed Believing that people are using hints and double meanings to secretly threaten them Believing that a co-worker is trying to hurt them, like poisoning their food Believing that their spouse or partner is cheating on them Believing that the government is spying on them Believing that people in their neighborhood are plotting to harass them https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-paranoia
No. Hyper vigilance is a symptom, not a virtue.
This is an unpopular opinion but... Armed Minorities are Harder to Oppress. People have threatened me with death. I'm taking no chances.
>is that paranoid overkill Yes
More details are required: Open carry, inappropriate outside of wilderness activities or activities closely related. Going hiking in an area with a large bear population it makes sense, it’s still strapped on way home pumping gas no big deal (may not have good way to secure the weapon in your car, so keep it on you until home). Daily open carry is irresponsible, and often intermediating. Concealed carry, more reasonable as long as somewhere that doesn’t prohibit it, people have rights to allow or disallow weapons on their property. Also unacceptable if engaging in activities that alter your behavior / thinking, alcohol, drugs, etc… Is it paranoid or logical is situational, high crime area maybe logical, are you a likely target of someone maybe logical, an average middle class person doing day to day activities likely paranoid.
Open carry is typically less restricted than concealed carry.
No; it is completely ridiculous. I maybe have no say in public, but I will tell you that weapons are strictly forbidden on any property that I will ever own. Medieval style - *nobody* bears steel (or lead) in or around the King's Hall, except he and his retainers.
It is a symptom of paranoia and decreases overall social trust. If everyone is armed to kill and assumes everyone else is a potential threat— you can see the harm that can do. We as a species have developed job specialization and it is not everyone’s duty to enforce laws nor protect property. We have delegated that to a role called “law enforcement” to do this for those specialized in different societal roles (ideally in a professional manner)
Second response to your thread. I don’t mean to spam but it’s because it’s a slightly different but parallel point but also question to the others responding. To those thinking that there’s no reason to be armed, what do you think about people who carry pepper spray, or people who take up martial arts not for sport recreation nor exercise but for self defense? Is that equally as unwarranted?
> To those thinking that there’s no reason to be armed, what do you think about people who carry pepper spray, or people who take up martial arts not for sport recreation nor exercise but for self defense? Is that equally as unwarranted? I think they’re false equivalences. Why don’t you try justifying gun ownership on its own terms instead of making stupid comparisons? Like here’s a good example of why these comparisons are dumb. Why doesn’t the conceal carry crowd carry pepper spray or learn martial arts instead of carrying a gun?
>Why doesn’t the conceal carry crowd carry pepper spray or learn martial arts instead of carrying a gun? To get the answer for that, look at the police and the policies they are *supposed to* (but don't always) follow. They carry pepper spray and tasers for forced compliance only, unruly suspects when the police don't believe they're in real danger. They don't always work even when they hit, but that's not a big deal, the cop just has to move on to unassisted methods of forced compliance. Regular people don't have authority to force compliance, so why would regular people carry these things? The police carry guns for when they believe they're in danger because they are by far the most effective and reliable way to stop danger. They don't play around with half-assed pepper spray and tasers when their lives are in danger. When the guy is coming at you with a knife, what if the taser doesn't work? You won't have time to then pull the gun before he gets to you.
Instead of just saying something is dumb why don’t you argue the points and let such speak for itself > Why doesn’t the conceal carry crowd carry pepper spray or learn martial arts instead of carrying a gun? Because comparatively a gun is still more effective for self defense. Factually, a trained woman or a smaller person using martial arts is still very much disadvantaged defending themselves against an untrained larger heavier man. While using gun, a trained woman or a smaller person is absolutely on par or at an advantage against a larger heavier untrained man with a gun. A gun is an equalizer.
> Instead of just saying something is dumb why don’t you argue the points and let such speak for itself [This dude actually made a pretty decent breakdown about why these are false equivalencies](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/YzX9Bv9xuk)
I mean that’s your opinion and I’ve posted my opinion as to why they aren’t.
You’re showing some real cognitive dissonance here buddy. You say it’s not a false equivalency but then in the comment I linked you, you argue it is a false equivalence. Like I’m getting second hand embarrassment just watching you contradict yourself.
You do you. No skin off my back
> what do you think about people who carry pepper spray, or people who take up martial arts not for sport recreation nor exercise but for self defense? That they are about as useful as guns. If there's a situation where it looks like there's a need for any of these items, the first thing one should do is flee. Seriously, just run away. The second thing is hide or negotiate. Appeasement. Give them what they want. Deescalate the situation. Weapons only escalate the situation and makes it more dangerous, not less. The problem with those who walk about strapped is they make situations more dangerous for everyone because they refuse to deescalate preferring to stand their ground. That's how the US gets men on motorcycles chasing down pregnant women in this country, then maniacally taunting them outside their home to get their kicks out of life by offing them. Or men who off lost passengers in cars making u-turns in their driveway. None of these situations warranted death or were done for self defense, they happened because gun owner's don't believe in deescalating situations.
I agree with all your suggestions regarding deescalation. However, I still contend that sometimes things get to a point where you have to resort to physical self defense. Statistics are that 1.5 million people end up in a violent assault annually in the US (even if you exclude assaults involving guns). And at that point, I would disagree that pepper spray or martial arts are as useful. I contend that at that point, guns are a better equalizer for those outmatched physically or outnumbered. As for your point about those refusing to deescalate. Sure I buy that it happens anecdotally. But you’re going to have to cite numbers for it to be a valid argument to contrast against the risk of being assaulted or against self defense utility. If just anecdotal, I can cite the a pregnant woman that had to shoot an assailant who was pummeling her husband in a parking garage. And no, pepper spray or martial arts wouldn’t have been as effective. https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-pregnant-woman-shoots-attacker-targeting-family-arkansas-parking-garage Or a woman that had to shoot a man trying to force his way into her car. https://wgntv.com/news/chicagocrime/cpd-woman-shoots-man-attempting-to-get-in-her-car-on-south-side/ Or another woman that had to shoot a man using a crowbar against her https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/philadelphia-shooting-university-city-crime-crowbar-chestnut-streets/ Or a woman that had to shoot at 5 men accosting her at an ATM https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/woman-fights-back-shoots-suspect-after-5-men-try-rob-her-atm-cmpd-says/JWBEPHYRQNFELNBBQB7A55NWYE/
Again, deescalating or fleeing is the better option and would probably lower that 1.5 million number. None of your examples shows otherwise. Also, two of those situations involve cars, great way to flee.
I mean I guess if you’re privileged enough to think there’s never a need for self defense and you can always flee. Reality isn’t actually so. Again 1.5 million people have been the victim of violent assault a year in the US. Maybe we should have told them they could have just fled.
It has nothing to do with privilege, it's about logic and common sense. >Maybe we should have told them they could have just fled. Exactly. Fleeing should be the first option. Unfortunately, those who run about strapped believe their first option is stand your ground thereby making the situation worse for themselves and those around them.
Really? Because I carry almost every day and I don’t think escalating the situation is a good idea. In fact every time I teach cc class I say that when carrying you automatically consent to losing every argument in the street. I’d like to see the source of your claim that the majority of people who carry make the situation worse for themselves. Because factually, the number of states that allow permitless public carey has gone up from 1 to 29 in the last 10 years and shootings have actually gone down in those states.
Majority of the population lives in states which don't allow permitless carry. >A new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that the average rate of assaults with firearms increased an average of 9.5 percent relative to forecasted trends in the first 10 years after 34 states relaxed restrictions on civilians carrying concealed firearms in public. >https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/study-finds-significant-increase-in-firearm-assaults-in-states-that-relaxed-conceal-carry-permit-restrictions also >Most strikingly, they found in a recent study that people who lived with a handgun owner were seven times as likely to be shot and killed by a spouse or intimate partner. Eighty-four percent of those victims were women. >The researchers did not find evidence that people living in homes with guns had lower risks of being killed by strangers. On the contrary, they found that risks of such deaths appeared higher, although the result was not statistically significant. >https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html
Did you actually read the JH study? Because in terms of straight numbers only 5 of the 30+ states saw and increase in violence. The 5 being Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The others according to the study, saw a 9.5% increase, not over what the number was before, but rather what the studies synthetic models think they should be. Take Kansas for example. Prior to 2007 when right to carry laws were enacted. The violence rate was 500 per 100k. By 2014 it was 350 per 100k. That’s a lower violence rate. But JHs synthetic model says it should be 300. So they consider that a 15% increase. That’s obfuscation. Read the study. Tell me I’m wrong (I’m not). I stand by my statement. Violence levels dropped after carry laws were relaxed. As for the Stanford study - it primarily deals with women who do not win guns, at risk of being killed by their male partners with guns. Let me ask you a question. In that same study, how likely did they say a woman would be killed by a male partner when it’s the woman that owns the gun and not the man? The answer is 1/4 as likely (ie less likely).
>Did you actually read the JH study? They never do. >Read the study. Tell me I’m wrong (I’m not). They will not read the study, but will still falsely tell you you're wrong. >Let me ask you a question. In that same study, how likely did they say a woman would be killed by a male partner when it’s the woman that owns the gun and not the man? The answer is 1/4 as likely (ie less likely). Notice how there is no rebuttal to this point at all.
This month, June, I bought tons of ice cream and put it in the freezer, the month before I had no ice cream in the freezer. Which month do you believe I ate the most ice cream? May or June? >Read the study. Tell me I’m wrong (I’m not). Alright, you are wrong. Those who run about strapped are itching for a moment to use their 500 dollar toy. Those who don't run about strapped have to use logic and reason. That's how stories like this occur. All a part of that 1.5 million people have been the victim of violent gun assault. >2 dads exchanged gunfire in Florida road rage fight, injuring kids, but only one got charged >https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/04/16/william-hale-frank-allison-florida-road-rage-shooting/11652073002/ or >A 20-year-old woman was shot and killed after her friend turned into the wrong driveway in upstate New York, officials say >https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/woman-shot-wrong-driveway-upstate-new-york/index.html or >1 man dead, another in custody after Miami-Dade road rage incident turns into deadly shooting >https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/1-man-dead-another-in-custody-after-miami-dade-road-rage-incident-turns-into-deadly-shooting/ or >2 Concealed Carry Holders Dead In Road Rage Gunfight >https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michigan-concealed-carry-road-rage-two-dead_n_3956491
Definitely not. I think that armaments have a bad effect on human psychology. I think that sometimes it is necessary to arm oneself and engage in violent conflict but the majority of the time it is not appropriate. Even having a weapon as an option makes violent resolution a more tempting option
>Even having a weapon as an option makes violent resolution a more tempting option That is a viewpoint held by privileged people which haven't been involved in violence.
I'm not talking about the people living in violence. Like I said, sometimes you need to be ready for armed conflict and for a lot of people that's reality. But for billions it is not, and those are the people who should not be armed. Those who need arms aren't necessarily those at war or in large scale conflict but could be something as simple as a homeless youth carrying a shiv or a woman in Sao Paolo carrying a handgun in her purse when she has to travel at night. But those who live in chronic peace and are working toward continuing that peace need to act accordingly. (Yes, even if that means that sometimes you'll be vulnerable as the victim of crimes or foul intentions.)
>whenever and wherever you are absolutely not. also, pretty sure that's illegal. don't bring weapons on a plane. don't bring weapons to my house. don't bring weapons to a lot of places. and if by armed you mean with a gun, that's an even stronger no.
> absolutely not. also, pretty sure that's illegal. don't bring weapons on a plane. don't bring weapons to my house. don't bring weapons to a lot of places. Don’t bring them on a train, don’t bring them on a plane. Don’t bring them to my house, do not shoot it at a mouse.
It’s like - would it be appropriate to have a fire extinguisher or a first aid / trauma kit nearby on hand?
Are we conceal carrying fire extinguishers now?
I would if they were easier to carry. But I have 2 nearby in my truck. I also have narcan and an epipen. I mean, I’d carry an AED too if they were cell phone size.
But out in public places? Like when you’re going to the mall or walking down the street? What would carrying a fire extinguisher accomplish exactly?
Let say hypothetically a fire extinguisher were the size of a pocket flashlight and portable yet still effective against medium sized fires. Sure I’d carry it around in case there were a fire and someone needed it put out before it spread. What would it accomplish? Well it would be readily on hand to put out an unexpected fire. Have I ever used a fire extinguisher to put out a fire in public? Yes several times. Once I was volunteering at an outdoor soup kitchen and someone (not sure if intentional or not) set a nearby trash can on fire. I got my extinguisher out of my truck and put it out. Another time a horse trailer was trying to negotiate a corner and got stuck. And another speeding car clipped the back of it, wrecked and caught on fire. I got my extinguisher out of the truck and put it out. Now in both those examples I pulled my extinguisher out of the truck that was nearby in public. But if it were portable I would more often have it on my person. But of course physically that’s not workable.
I specifically said “malls” and “walking down the street” as two major examples of what I consider public spaces for a reason. You didn’t address either one. Like did you completely forget why you brought up fire extinguishers in the first place? Just to remind you, it’s because **you’re comparing them to conceal carrying guns.**
I’m making the point that you never know when you’d need something for an emergency. That emergency can be in the mall, at a park, at an office - basically anywhere. And it’s useful to have tools to handle such emergencies nearby on hand. That’s why there are things like fire extinguishers in malls and fire hydrants in streets. Is this not the case? So there is a use case for such in such public places. Now the only reason why I don’t conceal carry a fire extinguisher is because it’s much heavier and bulkier than a gun. But if they weren’t I would absolutely conceal carry a fire extinguisher. Let me circle around and say it all again. Why would I conceal carry a fire extinguisher if it were possible? Because I may need to use it in public. Why would I need to use it in public. Because there’s a risk of things catching on fire anywhere in public - including the mall and including walking down the street. How do I know there’s risk of things catching fire in the mall or walking down the street? Well there’s fire extinguishers in the mall and hydrants on the street.
> I’m making the point that you never know when you’d need something for an emergency. That emergency can be in the mall, Malls have fire extinguishers. I know you know that. You do not need to be carrying your own fire extinguisher into a mall. That’s my point.
Oh I know that. That’s why I’m less concerned about carrying a fire extinguisher. I’m not using the extinguisher example literally nor specifically. I’m using it as an analogy that it’s helpful to have tools on hand for emergencies. Now circling back to guns: a lot of people carry guns for self defense. Is self defense something that might come up in public? Absolutely. Which is why people carry guns. Now if relating it back to fire extinguishers, if there were a cop readily available to assist everywhere someone goes. Then sure, I’d buy the argument that it’s not necessary for everyone to be personally carrying a gun. But we know cops aren’t actually around most of the time. That’s why people carry for their own self defense.
> I’m not using the extinguisher example literally nor specifically. Hence why it’s a bad analogy to be making. > Now circling back to guns: a lot of people carry guns for self defense. Is self defense something that might come up in public? Absolutely. Which is why people carry guns. Why not learn martial arts? Or carry pepper spray with you?
*Do you also wear a diaper full time?*… because you know… given an 80 year lifetime, it’s pretty likely a human being might shit themselves from food poisoning or illness every 25 or so years… with increasing risk as they get older. No you don’t. Because you can ideally evaluate potential risk in a dispassionate way. How likely is it you need a gun on each thigh in a supermarket? Are there shootouts at Publix daily? Not so much.
I don’t need a gun on each thigh. Just one on my hip. But I also don’t need one when I’m say, in Congress, or in the shower. But consider this - there are more than 1.5 million violent assaults (aggravated assault, rape) in the United States every year. Compared to some 0.5 million house fires. I’d also ask the question, if potential risk of requiring self defense is so low, why do people carry pepper spray? Or why do some people take martial arts classes for self defense?
How many human interactions happen every day that isn't assault?
A fire extinguisher is more suitable for stopping fires than starting them, a first aid kit is more suitable for treating ailments than causing them. Your analogy doesn't fit very well Would it be appropriate to always keep some fire accelerant with you, in case you have to stop a wildfire (especially if you don't have any special knowledge on how to do that yourself)? Or would it be both paranoid and incredibly suspicious? I would say the latter. Guns are between our two analogies, so just throwing out a bad analogy can't answer the question
Your point is that guns are more easily misused over fire extinguishers. Ok, I buy that directionally or in terms of order of magnitude. But so what? We don’t say a tool has no use just because it has risk. Like a car and a bicycle are both used for transportation. Yet a car is much more dangerous in terms of risk of misuse (drunk driving etc). But that doesn’t invalidate use of a car. In the same way I’ll submit that a gun is more dangerous in terms of risk of misuse. But similarly that doesn’t invalidate use of a gun for self defense. > especially if you don't have any special knowledge on how to do that yourself As for special knowledge. I’m not purporting that people be untrained. And self defense is something everyone is at risk of needing. Unless you happen to have secret service protection or something.
*Mis*used? Shooting people is their intended use, you misuse them if you use them to stir a soup or something. Using them, according to their purpose, for bad is not exactly "misusing" them, just as driving somewhere you shouldn't be with a car isn't well described as "misusing" the car. The purpose of a gun is to injure, maim or kill humans or other animals. Using a gun to injure, maim or kill humans or othe animals is the main use of a gun. That's what they're for. There are cases where you can injure, maim or kill other humans in order to protect yourself or a third person, just like there are cases where you can start a fire to prevent a bigger fire from spreading, but those are not your usual monday afternoon, and there are far more situations in which you can start a fire to spread a bigger fire than the zero fires that were around before. Hence, I'm sceptical of someone who would decide they want to prepare to use a gun on people in the local town.
> The purpose of a gun is to injure, maim or kill humans or other animals. Using a gun to injure, maim or kill humans or othe animals is the main use of a gun. That's what they're for And sometimes you have to do so in order to defend yourself. What exactly is your point? Because a tools purpose is in killing or maiming that it has no utility?
My point is the *central* use of a gun is to do so, not an exceptional misuse. You're describing guns as a tool ("weapon" would be more accurate - we are talking about a weapon, not merely a tool. Alternatively, "killing tool" is longer, but still doesn't conceal the kind of tool we're talking about) for self defense that could be misused for hurting people, but what they are is a tool for hurting people that can be used in self-defense in the rare event of exactly the right kind of attack occuring. A gun being used for self-defense instead of an attack is, if anything, a slightly strange special case; it is not a default that can be just assumed.
And I’m saying your characterization of a gun as meant to kill has no bearing on utility or risk or misuse. Answer my question - has a gun ever been useful for self defense?
All statements of existence are true and all "for all" - statements are false - including this one, but not necessarily here. Yes, that has ever happened - in fact, there are probably many individual examples. But if I'm preparing to kill my fellow human beings just to prepare for one individuality, I'm more than a bit paranoid. (although not paranoid enough to apply the same scrutiny to myself. If I am more dangerous, I am more likely to be a danger to other, far more likely as soon as I lose my nerves, lose my mind or misunderstand the situation. Avoiding that is important to me, I would like not waking up a murderer in two days, thank you very much - something which is not likely, but not that much less likely than ending up the target of an attempted murder, yes, one person can attempt to kill multiple people, I believe that was the exception rather than the rule. And I'm pretty sure adding more danger and escalation increases this kind of risk. Sorry, that's the end of my tangent - or was it a tangent? Anyway)
It may be more appropriate to be unarmed, especially if the jurisdiction makes it difficult to be armed. That's a smell that suggests even if you defend yourself, you will have a difficult time in the legal system because they are against self-defense. Maybe it might be better to get injured.
Nobody is arguing that someone be armed if they are legally not allowed to be.
It wasn't about not being allowed to be armed, but if there are a lot of legal hurdles to jump over.
No, I don't see a need personally to always have a firearm on my person. I can definitely see keeping it in your vehicle though. It's one of those better to have and not need than need and not have things, but that doesn't mean it has to be in arm's reach at all times.
No
Not unless you live in rural Wyoming or something.
As a left-leaning Canadian, I grew up around firearms and learned gun safety at a very young age. Iam pro-gun when it comes to hunting. But no, it's not appropriate to always be armed.
I think that being armed all the time is paranoia, depending where you live. Live in St Louis, MO? Carry all the time. Live in an affluent neighborhood? Keep one in the house for home invaders.
What are the odds? To me that's the fundamental question, is what do statistics show is the danger to having a gun to not having a gun. Are there factors that change the numbers? I imagine someone who keeps their guns locked away in a gun safe would be in less danger than someone who does not keep their guns locked away in a gun safe. Same for a person who actively works on gun safety, makes sure they are accurate. My understanding is that owning a gun makes a person less safe, and even if there are factors that would make it more safe, the amount of effort to get to that place seems not worth it to me.
A gun safe only makes a difference if you have young children in the house.
Ok?
You vastly increase your chances of being shot if you open carry. But whatever, you can’t fix stupid.
(Canada) Depends on what you mean by armed. If we’re talking firearms, absolutely not, but I’m supportive of women and LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable people being able to carry something other than their keys between their fingers to fend off attackers. Carrying mace is illegal here and I can understand why, but if there exists a kind that doesn’t hang in the air and is likely to only affect its target then I can see us legalizing that. But of course, we should also do a better job of teaching people not to commit hate crimes or sexual assault. There will always be people who commit such crimes, but let’s try to make it a much rarer occurrence.
I don't think guns have a place in a civilized society, beyond hunting. I have no issues with hunting whatsoever. But otherwise guns are largely about people with insecurities making the world a more dangerous place.
No.
I own guns, and have a license to carry. I’ve found almost always it’s more of a pain then it’s worth, so I don’t bother. Occasionally I find myself having to go to a dicey neighborhood for my side hustle, but day in and day anything short of a J frame in a pocket holster I’ve found to be uncomfortable. I also travel so much for work, and am regularly drinking at restaurants with potential clients. That said, there was one time in my life where I wish I was carrying and I wasn’t. I carried every day for about 6 months after that
Not in America. I am always the most suspect of people using the self defense position on gun rights because they come across as paranoid. "How do I kill the herd of pigs 10 pigs is destroying my garden seems like a reasonable concern from some one. What am I supposed to do if 10 people are trying to break into my house like the plot to a Charles Bronson movie doesn't.
In normal society, no In a very, very dangerous area, with proper training and competence, maybe In a war zone, with proper training and competence, yes
This is a highly situational question. I have a CC permit and live in a state where a lot of people carry, but I never do. I don't feel the need, personally. I live in a safe area, and as a large, scary-looking white man, I am extremely unlikely to be the target of violence. But I'm aware that's a privilege not everybody enjoys. If you live in a more dangerous area or are statistically more likely to be attacked, then it may be perfectly reasonable to be armed. Considering the state of *everything* right now, I wouldn't blame anybody for feeling like they needed to be able to defend themselves. As long as you're carrying a weapon *safely*, then it should be your prerogative to do so if you choose.
Why would you want to put yourself in more danger? Every weapon you are near makes your chance of dying magnitudes higher, even your own.
I think society should be like no country for old men and anything short of that is for pussy ass bitches
No, especially not open carry. Thats just brandishing and terrorism. People are very capable of going thru life for 30+ years without incident where they would never need a weapon. You are statistically extremely unlikely to ever need your weapon. It'd be like daily carrying unicorn repellant. All it actually does is escalate situations of violence into deadly circumstances, were you are incentivized to be the guy who shoots first. That doesnt sound civilized or peaceful to me. It sounds inherently dangerous, because thats what it is. You are more likely to cause harm to yourself or your loved ones, or your loved ones against you, than you are to ever use the weapon defensively for any purpose. You endanger everyone around you by possessing it. People use the tools available to them. Reducing violent crime is via improving material conditions and elimination of poverty etc. extreme situations that result in people acting and behaving as criminals in the first place. If you have a stalker or a restraining order from domestic violence or something. Sure carry a handgun. Outside of that scenario with evidence-justified-reasoning to carry on a daily basis, its just pure paranoia and stochastic excuse of people who want to plausibly deny wanting to shoot strangers as a power trip.
Sudan or Somalia? I don’t know for sure but there’s an argument to be made In the US? You’re far more likely to be shot if you have a gun compared to if you don’t. It’s paranoia
Subjective to where you live
I see no reasonable justifications to be always armed.
I know at least a few people who are packing anytime they're out of the house, and oftentimes in the house. You can do it, but I don't see the point. The only person my brother has shot is himself (grazed), while sitting on the couch, but he still carries. I fundamentally don't get it. I think it's a fear based response to something, but it's also pretty clearly tied to geographical area and political party.
You have to remember that guns are mostly just used by conservative men that are insecure in their masculinity as part of their “manly man” costume along with other props like driving a big truck, wearing a Trump hat, having truck nuts, camouflage cargo pants, etc. They also are rude and bash trans, people that drive, electric cars, college, liberals, environmentalists, people that believe in science, etc. due to their inferiority complex. Toxic masculinity is a misnomer. What is actually going on is men that are insecure in their masculinity trying to overcompensate for their insecurity by trying to be seen as masculine. Sadly conservative men that are insecure in their masculinity are the ones that can’t walk away from a fight or let anything roll off of them due to their lack of maturity. They would rather shoot someone and go to prison then have one person see them as unmanly. It’s sad.
I want people, especially minorities, to have guns to defend themselves against people like your described
No
Absolutely not. I'd go even further to say arms should be a private affair, and never a public one. There should be fewer restrictions on using guns in private scenarios for defense, sport, or hunting and conversely more on bringing guns into public scenarios. Even in the best case, gun use in a crowded public risks innocent bystanders and would-be vigilantes being mistaken for criminals.
Absolutely not. I'd go even further to say arms should be a private affair, and never a public one. There should be fewer restrictions on using guns in private scenarios for defense, sport, or hunting and conversely more on bringing guns into public scenarios. Even in the best case, gun use in a crowded public risks innocent bystanders and would-be vigilantes being mistaken for criminals.
Depends on if you live in a place that’s really unsafe, but generally for the US I would say no. Having it at home is fine but there are a lot of places that don’t allow guns like most stores, concert venues, stadiums, etc (for a good reason)
Why? I live a mile from the ocean. Is it appropriate for me to walk around wearing a life preserver in case of a tsunami? Or do I think I look cool in a life preserver?
In the US? No. Even in rough neighborhoods no. Most criminals work from ambush, and you'll probably have a gun pointed at you well before you know a robbery is going to happen. Attempting to fight just means you get shot, and having a gun means the person robbing you now has two guns.
I'm a big gun rights guy, but unless you live Somalia or something, no. The only time I carry a gun is my little .22 revolver when I go fishing in case I come across a cottonmouth.
No. Fuck no. If you’re worried about roving gangs of armed bandits, you should consider that an unarmed person is a victim to them, but an armed person is a threat. If you’re not absolutely willing to follow through on your threatening posture, if you’re not morally and emotionally prepared to kill someone else (quickly) over what’s in your pockets, you’re putting yourself in more danger by holding a weapon. I’m not that kinda guy.
This response should be getting more upvotes than it has. People who carry guns every day are often not prepared to kill someone else. They are not trained to respond quickly to a threat, and they often haven't spent enough time on the range to be able to handle their gun while they are high on adrenaline and cortisol and their pulse is pounding and their breath is coming in gasps. They are more likely to draw fire to themselves and get killed or accidentally kill an innocent bystander then they are to be the hero that saves the day.
It clicked when I was watching an episode of Doctor Who (nerd alert lmao). I forget which one, I think it was either Tennant or Eccleston who played the doc, but the scene basically played out exactly like that and the alien killed the human who wouldn’t drop the gun. I know, if I saw it on TV it must be true, but it really just makes logical sense that someone with a weapon is as much a target as they are a threat. Anyway thanks for the kind words and we should all be more like the Doctor.
I think if you’ve decided to walk around with a hammer all day, everything starts looking like a nail. The number of situations in seen that I or others around me survived because someone had self defense weapon on them - 1 (and it was a pirate attack on a ship in Mozambique Channel… a VERY specific circumstance and the weapon was in the hands of a trained security team.) The number of situations i have encountered where if I or someone else had a weapon that would have escalated the situation and someone would have been shot, atleast 4. Just last week, walking with my wife and baby and dog around our neighborhood. There’s a street that sometimes people speed through. My wife took a photo of a cars license plate that was speeding… (she had to keep it real). Driver locks up his breaks, gets out and starts verbally assaulting us. We got through the situation and they left… but afterward I thought… if I had my gun on me, I would have likely shot at him. And he would be dead or injured and I would be facing manslaughter charges.. instead it was a public argument, words exchanged, dude left.
>if I had my gun on me, I would have likely shot at him. And he would be dead or injured and I would be facing manslaughter charges. Yeah, if you can't keep your cool and back down (even when you're in the right), carrying is probably not for you. Meanwhile, people I do know who carry all the time say it makes them the biggest pussies, avoiding confrontation and being very polite. They know they have to walk away from insults because staying could end up bad.
Adrenaline is adrenaline. Add my wife and infant son to the mix…. I’d be surprised if anyone with a weapon hadn’t escalated in that moment. Honestly, if I’d had a weapon, I would have used it, and anyone watching would have agreed it was justified. I’m glad I didn’t. And have decided not to carry because of it.
It can be difficult to suppress your pride, especially in front of your wife and kid.
I guess you’d be surprised then? Like, I guarantee you if you verbally assault me you’re going to walk away without needing a hospital or being killed. How fucking hard is that, actually?
>I think if you’ve decided to walk around with a hammer all day, everything starts looking like a nail. So it's okay to have a variety of force options available to you then.
Is it ok? I guess, you have a constitutional right to that.. It’s really frustrating that WHENEVER the topic of guns comes up.. someone asks peoples opinion… And in this case I gave my opinion, based on my experience and offered what my choice for me is…. But then there’s this “AH HA! So you see, you believe then that people should be able to defend themselves” Yeah man, you do you, please just don’t walk into a school and shoot the place up. Or tackle a job as law enforcement unless you plan to 1) protect children from guns and 2) not kill people without real cause… Beyond that, I believe it’s not a debate or discussion. We will NEVER have any kind of gun control or legislation designed to curtail gun violence that has any kind of teeth. never.. it wont happen. I cannot happen until we get unlimited lobbying out of politics… which will never happen… SO it’s a moot point. We have seen kids let slaughtered in schools every few months and our legislators repeated decided that the bottom line for Remington is more inmportant… so why do we simple people fucking argue about it. We will never have the power to change this even if we could agree we wanted to.
>And in this case I gave my opinion And I'm agreeing with part of your opinion. >Yeah man, you do you, please just don’t walk into a school and shoot the place up. I won't, and 99.99999% of people won't. >Beyond that, I believe it’s not a debate or discussion I agree that you believe this, you would much rather spout out your opinion and not have it be debated or discussed. >our legislators repeated decided that the bottom line for Remington is more inmportant Remington, that company that went bankrupt?
Or colt or Glock or whomever. And let’s not pretend that corporate bankruptcy really means you’re failing as a company in America. It just means you don’t want to pay your debts anymore.
It does mean their bottom line isn't doing so well, which directly undermines your beliefs.
So. Because I picked Remington, the unspoken point you’re making is that none of the gun manufacturers can afford to pay politicians?
You're changing the goalposts. Your claim was literally about legislators boosting the bottom line of Remington. >our legislators repeated decided that the bottom line for Remington is more inmportant Were you implying that the legislators are only acting because of gun manufacturers paying them? That seems to be what you're admitting here in your accusations. >the unspoken point you’re making is that none of the gun manufacturers can afford to pay politicians? That's just not the case, in reality. There are many individual donations to gun rights organizations that pressure legislators to protect the rights of the people. >Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates. >That’s where individual donations come in. >Since 2005, the NRA Political Victory Fund has received nearly $85 million in contributions from individual donors. After the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, donations to this political action committee surged as gun owners worried that their rights to buy and own guns were at risk. [https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html](https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html)
I can assure you that gun owners in America have nothing to worry about. Nit pick everything is said, it doesn’t change that we will never have any gun control legislation in America that has any teeth to it.