Do you have a gun to protect you and you family

a reply to: network dude

Do you go ""boating"" often do you?

That would explain a lot. LoL

You got me tagged im really jelly.

If you need your guns to make you feel safe network dude, you have your guns, that's your own bag of spanners to contend with.

The rest of the world, well we will do our thing, and carry on regardless.

As to stupidity i think you may find more guns than people tick that box in spades.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Madviking

United we stand divided we fall usually, resistance does end up in unnecessary civilian deaths and I'd be naive to say there's ever a right answer.

Something is going wrong if violence is the default or logical conclusion, for all I know Gandhi had it right but I'm not going to sit and preach to Indians on their Northern border. I try to steer away from talking about the 2nd amendment too for that matter.

You caught the gist of my post, for all our wokeness and super inclusiveness the truth remains that if you're the wrong people at the wrong time then you're pretty much screwed.. pushing that proverbial rock up a hill, armed or not.

Poignant quote, I'm grateful to have never walked in such shoes nor felt the sorrows or the regret that must come with such memories. Humanity is an eternal struggle it would seem.

I agree that violence should never be the default. It should only ever be the last option remaining. The 2nd Amendment is not meant for random violence or to solve disputes. Imperfect as it is, the Constitution attempts to lay out due process, a judicial system etc.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: network dude

Do you go ""boating"" often do you?

That would explain a lot. LoL

You got me tagged im really jelly.

If you need your guns to make you feel safe network dude, you have your guns, that's your own bag of spanners to contend with.

The rest of the world, well we will do our thing, and carry on regardless.

As to stupidity i think you may find more guns than people tick that box in spades.

You are just jelly because you can't speak freely on Facebook without a police visit (although that may have been discontinued recently), and have knife restrictions. You can't even talk about child grooming by gangs without getting in trouble.

Facebook Police! OMG So Triggered!

As to the rest of the world, you do realize that other countries than the US allow gun ownership right? Speaking of your stellar geography knowledge you mentioned.

www.rt.com...

A staggering rise in online hate crime, as people are attacked over Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites, has led to a gigantic leap in arrests in Britain.

British police are arresting nine people per day for attacks on the internet as they attempt to clamp down on hate speech online.

Hate crimes targeting British mosques more than double in a year
Read more Hate crimes targeting British mosques more than double in a year
In some areas, this is up almost 900 percent from 2014.

The number of people detained for alleged attacks over the internet has rocketed in two years as social media allows users to verbally attack others.

“Trolling” can cause serious distress and high-profile politicians and campaigners have been targeted, as well as celebrities and ordinary people.

Last year, more than 3,300 people were detained and questioned, according to the Times.

Police in London arrested 867 people last year while West Midlands police arrested 635 suspects.

The increase in the Midlands is staggering as figures showed an 877 percent rise in the number of arrests since 2014, when 65 people were detained.

originally posted by: network dude
We are allowed to have scary black rifles with attachments, but they aren't what idiots call "military grade".

Who wants "military grade"? I might be able to effectively use an automatic weapon, but I couldn't carry an amount of rounds necessary to feed that function. Far better to be extremely accurate and use a round with legs.

Better than that: recognize that their ultimate goal is to neutralize your family. Fair being fair ... go after their's before they can shift their sights onto yours.

a reply to: Madviking

Once they got your guns ... they can pretty much arrest you for anything. Wonder what crime they'll make up next.

a reply to: Madviking

My own nation allows gun ownership Madviking as long as you have a reason to own one and a place to shoot it, so yes jelly as hell.

As your Facebook nonsense, that just shows how nuts you are, i talk about hanging certain prime ministers and there ilk from London bridge all the time and the worst you get is a months ban and thats only if someone takes the huff. LoL

The rest of the world dont have the problems associated with gun crimes that the USA has, at least no first world nation, wonder why that is?

Must be all that freedom you have in spades.

My geography knowledge is not "stellar" by any manner nor means but i do understand the UK is comprised of several nations bar England, same as most people with half a brain really.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Madviking

My own nation allows gun ownership Madviking as long as you have a reason to own one and a place to shoot it, so yes jelly as hell.

As your Facebook nonsense, that just show how nuts you are, i talk about hanging certain prime ministers and there ilk from London bridge all the time and the worst you get is a months ban and thats only if someone takes the huff. LoL

The rest of the world dont have the problems associated with gun crimes that the USA has, at least no first world nation, wonder why that is?

Must be all that freedom you have in spades.

My geography knowledge is not "stellar" by any manner nor means but i do understand the UK is comprised of several nations bar England, same as most people with half a brain really.

It's telling that you don't know that by FAR the US doesn't have the highest violence or murder rate. Speaking again of your stellar knowledge of the rest of the world you keep referring to. So are you saying that in the UK proper there weren't police going to people's houses for social media posts? Are you saying those articles are false then?

Countries with highest murder rates:

Countries with highest murder rates

Highest murder rates

El Salvador
Jamaica
Venezuela
Honduras
Lesotho
Belize
St. Vincent & Gren.
South Africa
St. Kitts & Nevis
Trinidad & Tobago

The US also doesn't have the highest gun violence rate per capita either....

Gun violence rates per capita by country

Countries with the Highest Rates of Violent Gun Death (Homicides) per 100k residents in 2019
El Salvador (36.78)
Venezuela (33.27)
Guatemala (29.06)
Colombia (26.36)
Brazil (21.93)
Bahamas (21.52)
Honduras (20.15)
U.S. Virgin Islands (19.40)
Puerto Rico (18.14)
Mexico (16.41)

And here is 2021:
Gun violence by country up-to-date data

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: musicismagic

No, I don't.

I believe that the numbers relating to where firearms are used to harm a family (suicides, accidents, the unavailability of the weapon in the specific moment where it is required, or where it is taken to be an indicator of combativeness and an armed assailant shoots first in response) far outnumber the instances where a gun is protective of a family.

But I have trained in the use of firearms, and I can see the the valid use of one in farming and for hunting and sports.

Also, police and the armed forces have legitimate need for firearms.

Can you cite your data?

Defensive gun use in the US

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.

And the vast majority involve no shots fired but simply ending a crime by the presentation of a firearm.

In the US, there are significant numbers of cases where the presentation of what is taken to be a firearm, to an officer of the law, amounts to automatically being fired upon. The statistics are more prevalent if you are not Caucasian.

Also, the nature of the 'fudge factors' in the figures quoted in the article show how inexact and probably fallacious they are. 500,000 to 3,000,000 possible defensive uses of firearms per year, gives a median figure of 1,750,000 with an possible error of ± 1,250,000. That is not the sort of 'approximateness' one would see in actual demographic studies, and indicates the amount of guesswork that informs those numbers. 71% away from median is a massive deviation.

And then there is stuff like this: Ready, Fire, Aim: The Science Behind Police Shooting Bystanders

2021 POLICE VIOLENCE REPORT

a reply to: Madviking

And are those places all first world nations that think they are the best in the world?

Nope.

What's telling is the fact that you require a gun to make you feel safe. LoL

Im saying bar a racist dog salute muppet ive never heard of anyone getting the tin pale for FB comments unless they are inciting severe hatred or causing others to do harm.

In which case a knock on the door from Police is probably for the best dont you agree?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Madviking

And are those places all first world nations that think they are the best in the world?

Nope.

What's telling is the fact that you require a gun to make you feel safe. LoL

Im saying bar a racist dog salute muppet ive never heard of anyone getting the tin pale for FB comments unless they are inciting severe hatred or causing others to do harm.

In which case a knock on the door from Police is probably for the best dont you agree?

You are issuing logical fallacies, ideology, simplisms, etc. Take care dude.

As an example, a defense of the 2nd Amendment on a theoretical, historical, and legal basis, you take as "proof" that I "need a gun to feel safe." Childlike arguments.

a reply to: chr0naut

That isn't the data supporting your position about the cost-benefit analysis of gun ownership, nor is it data for your latter point either.

Can you show me where I posted, or my article, that people should be "presenting a firearm to police?" Yes, if you present a firearm to a police officer without being asked to you are highly likely to get shot. Do you understand why that would be?

That has nothing to do with presenting a firearm to a CRIMINAL attacking you. So, your straw man is noted, and summarily dismissed.

Secondly, I note here for the record you retreated into a racialized argument that was a non-sequitur to our previous points.

a reply to: Madviking

The world spins Madviking, and change is inevitable, so do ideologies, even things like the 2nd amendment require modification to keep up with times.

And those that dont change or choose not to stagnate wither on the vine and die.

It's childlike to assume guns can solve all problems or make people safe, so there is that.

But ile keep an eye out for those FB polis.

My bed time now anyroad Madviking, got to get up early tomorrow.

You take care also.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: musicismagic

No, I don't.

I believe that the numbers relating to where firearms are used to harm a family (suicides, accidents, the unavailability of the weapon in the specific moment where it is required, or where it is taken to be an indicator of combativeness and an armed assailant shoots first in response) far outnumber the instances where a gun is protective of a family.

But I have trained in the use of firearms, and I can see the the valid use of one in farming and for hunting and sports.

Also, police and the armed forces have legitimate need for firearms.

Can you cite your data?

Defensive gun use in the US

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.

And the vast majority involve no shots fired but simply ending a crime by the presentation of a firearm.

In the US, there are significant numbers of cases where the presentation of what is taken to be a firearm, to an officer of the law, amounts to automatically being fired upon. The statistics are more prevalent if you are not Caucasian.

Also, the nature of the 'fudge factors' in the figures quoted in the article show how inexact and probably fallacious they are. 500,000 to 3,000,000 possible defensive uses of firearms per year, gives a median figure of 1,750,000 with an possible error of ± 1,250,000. That is not the sort of 'approximateness' one would see in actual demographic studies, and indicates the amount of guesswork that informs those numbers. 71% away from median is a massive deviation.

That doesn't answer though your point that the risks outweigh the benefit, which is what I was asking data for.

If we take the low end of 500,000 defensive firearms uses, that still far outweighs the yearly firearm injuries:

Firearm injuries per year

More than 32,000 persons die and over 67,000 persons are injured by firearms each year. Case fatality rates are highest for self-harm related firearm injuries, followed by assault-related injuries. Males, racial/ethnic minority populations, and young Americans (with the exception of firearm suicide) are disproportionately affected. The severity of such injuries is distributed relatively evenly across outcomes from outpatient treatment to hospitalization to death. Firearm injuries result in over $48 billion in medical and work loss costs annually, particularly fatal firearm injuries. From 1993 to 1999, rates of firearm violence declined significantly. Declines were seen in both fatal and nonfatal firearm violence and across all types of intent. While unintentional firearm deaths continued to decline from 2000 to 2012, firearm suicides increased and nonfatal firearm assaults increased to their highest level since 1995.

This source states it's higher:

Firearm injuries per day and year

A new study by a team of researchers in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health expands research on trends of fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries in the U.S.. Their findings, published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, show that between 2009-2017, there has been an average of 120,232 firearm injuries each year, or 329 per day, and that cases of nonfatal injury are twice as prevalent as deaths from firearms. The study signifies the importance of evaluating the impact of firearm prevention policies and strategies not just on injuries that ultimately result in death, but also the more common cases in which people survive after emergency care.

The researchers, led by Elinore J. Kaufman, MD, MSHP, an assistant professor of Surgery in Traumatology, Surgical Critical Care, and Emergency Surgery, used data pulled from death certificates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that ranged from 2009 until 2017 and combined it with data on emergency room visits for nonfatal firearm injuries from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample.

The team of researchers categorized firearm injuries and deaths in the following ways: unintentional, self-harm, assault, legal intervention, or of undetermined intent. During the period examined, there were an average of 34,538 deaths per year, of which 77 percent occur outside hospital. In total, there were an average of 85,694 emergency department visits per year for nonfatal injuries. The likelihood of survival varied dramatically when it came to intent. Roughly 90 percent of self-harm injuries resulted in death versus approximately 25 percent for those injured in either assaults or legal intervention, such as police-involved shootings, and 1 percent of those injured unintentionally, such as through an accidental discharge of a firearm.

Self-harm caused the most deaths per year (21,128) with the vast majority occurring outside the hospital. However, after taking nonfatal injuries into account, assaults were the most common cause of firearm injury (39 percent of all injuries) followed closely by unintentional injuries (37 percent of all injuries).

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: musicismagic

No, I don't.

I believe that the numbers relating to where firearms are used to harm a family (suicides, accidents, the unavailability of the weapon in the specific moment where it is required, or where it is taken to be an indicator of combativeness and an armed assailant shoots first in response) far outnumber the instances where a gun is protective of a family.

But I have trained in the use of firearms, and I can see the the valid use of one in farming and for hunting and sports.

Also, police and the armed forces have legitimate need for firearms.

Can you cite your data?

Defensive gun use in the US

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.

And the vast majority involve no shots fired but simply ending a crime by the presentation of a firearm.

In the US, there are significant numbers of cases where the presentation of what is taken to be a firearm, to an officer of the law, amounts to automatically being fired upon. The statistics are more prevalent if you are not Caucasian.

Also, the nature of the 'fudge factors' in the figures quoted in the article show how inexact and probably fallacious they are. 500,000 to 3,000,000 possible defensive uses of firearms per year, gives a median figure of 1,750,000 with an possible error of ± 1,250,000. That is not the sort of 'approximateness' one would see in actual demographic studies, and indicates the amount of guesswork that informs those numbers. 71% away from median is a massive deviation.

That doesn't answer though your point that the risks outweigh the benefit, which is what I was asking data for.

If we take the low end of 500,000 defensive firearms uses, that still far outweighs the yearly firearm injuries:

Firearm injuries per year

More than 32,000 persons die and over 67,000 persons are injured by firearms each year. Case fatality rates are highest for self-harm related firearm injuries, followed by assault-related injuries. Males, racial/ethnic minority populations, and young Americans (with the exception of firearm suicide) are disproportionately affected. The severity of such injuries is distributed relatively evenly across outcomes from outpatient treatment to hospitalization to death. Firearm injuries result in over $48 billion in medical and work loss costs annually, particularly fatal firearm injuries. From 1993 to 1999, rates of firearm violence declined significantly. Declines were seen in both fatal and nonfatal firearm violence and across all types of intent. While unintentional firearm deaths continued to decline from 2000 to 2012, firearm suicides increased and nonfatal firearm assaults increased to their highest level since 1995.

This source states it's higher:

Firearm injuries per day and year

A new study by a team of researchers in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health expands research on trends of fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries in the U.S.. Their findings, published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, show that between 2009-2017, there has been an average of 120,232 firearm injuries each year, or 329 per day, and that cases of nonfatal injury are twice as prevalent as deaths from firearms. The study signifies the importance of evaluating the impact of firearm prevention policies and strategies not just on injuries that ultimately result in death, but also the more common cases in which people survive after emergency care.

The researchers, led by Elinore J. Kaufman, MD, MSHP, an assistant professor of Surgery in Traumatology, Surgical Critical Care, and Emergency Surgery, used data pulled from death certificates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that ranged from 2009 until 2017 and combined it with data on emergency room visits for nonfatal firearm injuries from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample.

The team of researchers categorized firearm injuries and deaths in the following ways: unintentional, self-harm, assault, legal intervention, or of undetermined intent. During the period examined, there were an average of 34,538 deaths per year, of which 77 percent occur outside hospital. In total, there were an average of 85,694 emergency department visits per year for nonfatal injuries. The likelihood of survival varied dramatically when it came to intent. Roughly 90 percent of self-harm injuries resulted in death versus approximately 25 percent for those injured in either assaults or legal intervention, such as police-involved shootings, and 1 percent of those injured unintentionally, such as through an accidental discharge of a firearm.

Self-harm caused the most deaths per year (21,128) with the vast majority occurring outside the hospital. However, after taking nonfatal injuries into account, assaults were the most common cause of firearm injury (39 percent of all injuries) followed closely by unintentional injuries (37 percent of all injuries).

My point was that the figures presented (500,000 to 3,000,000 defensive uses of firearms per year) appear to be bogus.

Another paper - Cook et al., 1997 - (noted in the paper referenced in the linked article) mention that defensive firearm uses per year were closer to 108,000 (at least during the term of that study). Yet that lower figure was entirely ignored in the article. Sounds like cherry picking data by the article's writers? Also note the number, 108,000. Sounds a little more specific than 500,000 or 3,000,000.

Also, clearly, you could not argue for the possible defensive use of firearms in the cases of suicide by firearm. Similarly, there is no case for defensive use of firearms against firearm accidents. These are by far the most prevalent cause of firearm deaths, so assumptions that defensive uses are somewhat similar to offensive uses, are clearly ignorant of the facts.

I myself would like better numbers on the defensive use numbers. Fair.

Most do not include suicides in their calculus, although the sources I posted did, because the assumption (correctly) is that many of those would have found a different method, and people do.

What you must demonstrate is that subtracting suicides, there is a net negative assessment of gun ownership. That was your assertion, for which I asked data for.

But let's assume for sake of argument that the beneficial use numbers were somehow equal to the negative impacts. Even with injuries, which can be solved or extremely reduced by safe gun use and storage, the injuries caused by other people (usually do to unsafe gun use) do not magically eradicate the value and use-case for others.

see above response. a reply to: chr0naut

a reply to: chr0naut

Please don't laugh...this is important.

45+ yrs, never an accident...or incident.

I did jump onto my revolver in the chair and missed my spine by a milli...just recent. Went to ER.

Embarrassed, yep. Still hv the S & W outline fading off my a--...

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Madviking

Once they got your guns ... they can pretty much arrest you for anything. Wonder what crime they'll make up next.

Alternatively, you can keep your guns and the cops will straight-up murder you for pretty much anything.

originally posted by: joejack1949

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Madviking

Once they got your guns ... they can pretty much arrest you for anything. Wonder what crime they'll make up next.

Alternatively, you can keep your guns and the cops will straight-up murder you for pretty much anything.

No not really. That's part of the inaccurate narratives.

According to the very liberal Washington Post, the number of police involved shootings last year is 853. Of those, a large percentage involved legitimate use of force. Therefore, your implied epidemic doesn't exist. Does that mean that there hasn't been police brutality? No.

According to Wapost, there have been approximately 5000 police shootings since 2015, in a nation of almost 350 million people.

Police shootings 2015-2022

a reply to: Madviking

Again, if we get to the point you fear, which is possible, random posts on the internet about guns will be the least of our worries. And, it will be one of the fewest used methods for how to track down people's guns. They will be using other methods most likely, from purchases to background checks, etc.

If ,as many believe, the government is profiling people then I'm sure firearm purchases are already cross-referenced with gun purchases. What a useful tool should they ever wish to call Marshal Law. Some people actually believe covid was a test run to assess how great and how swiftly the response would be. Government:10 Population:-5.

First and foremost, declared martial law will almost certainly result in the suspension of rights. This means that the United States Constitution would be suspended, and along with it, so would the rights to free speech and freedom of the press, to keep and bear arms, to a fair and speedy trial, and everything else.
In fact, even the right to own property will be suspended, and anything and everything you own can become seized by the government.
*military-enforced curfew
*mandatory confiscation of firearms
* confiscate food, water, first aid and medicine

gunivore.com...

Here's a conspiracy theory for you:
How do we know that hospital labs don't do a DNA profile on every child born? How do we know that some of the mandatory vaccines for newborns don't contain a chip?

The way to hide something in plain site is to scatter the pieces, just like they've done with covid. So many different sources speaking all at once with conflicting information that people don't know what to believe, so they trust reporters to ferret out the misinformation and bring us the 'truth' via MSM.

To think the different alphabet agencies aren't gathering, cataloging and cross-referencing every ounce of data on every single citizens is a fools folly for those of us who have lived through decades of watching the machine grow ever more oppressive, one tiny step at a time.