It’s really depressing. Yesterday I packed out an order for a hidden magnetic gun holder.
Like great. That is wonderful. Someone out there, possibly a paranoid deranged asshole, wants to keep a presumably loaded gun under their bedside table or desk…
Hey look, the exception that makes the “pretty much no one” part right! All the people in the American northern territories (Alaska, Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik) don’t represent one million in population out of 372 millions for the US + Canada, that’s less than 0.26% of the population or “pretty much no one” and not all of them need one (my uncle used to live in Nunavik, never owned a gun in his life), not all of them are legally allowed to own them and not all of them want one either… Wow, that % is getting smaller and smaller now, isn’t it?
Spend some time in class to learn reading comprehension and maths before making comments like this.
By your very own logic basically no that owns a gun commits a crime with them. Fewer than 500,000 reported gun related crimes against over 100 million gun owners in the us. For a .05% gun offense rate by gun owners, and that percentage gets smaller when you consider how many of those are repeat offenders and people illegally owning a fire arm.
Seems like the math is saying its not guns, but maybe something else these criminal offenders have in common that +99.95% don’t share with them…
Me: Pretty much no one need guns in rich countries
You: Go to Alaska! They need guns!
Me: Yeah, they might need them, they’re covered by the “pretty much no one” in my first message
You: Rambling about gun crime stats like it proves something about people needing guns
I could have the same argument with someone saying they need a pickup truck or a 5000 sq ft house in the city. There’s a very big difference between wanting and needing and pretty much no one in rich countries need guns today.
I never brought up crime because that’s irrelevant to what I said and you doing it just proves how irrational you’ve become when it comes to this subject. You’re so used to just typing a bunch of stuff on your keyboard whenever someone says they don’t like guns that now that you see someone mentioning that it’s not a need (never mentioning my personal stance on the subject) you’re unable to make the difference, to you it’s just an anti gun message because anything that doesn’t go “yay guns!” is anti guns in your mind and you just can’t help it, you try and pull the discussion in the direction you know and talk about crime and homicide rates.
Again, it’s a discussion about needs and it wasn’t started by me, I just added that it doesn’t just apply to boomers.
How do you define “need” in this context? I’ve “needed” a gun before, when a dude pulled a knife on me in a walmart parking lot I moved my shirt and grabbed the grip, didn’t even draw it, and with that action he decided to turn and calmly walk away instead of stab me and my then-gf. Had I not had it he could have taken my shit, sliced my belly open (which if you’ve never seen that, gruesome, happened to a bartender I dished for one night when he tried to break up a bar fight), or forced my girlfriend at the time into his car for god knows what, instead, he decided “maybe the next one,” and I have a hard time believing that had nothing to do with me grabbing the grip. Did I “need” it because he was clearly threatening our lives? Did I not because I wasn’t stabbed yet? How do you define “need?”
Oh and just to be clear in case you (like me) neglect to read usernames sometimes: I am a different person.
You’re making assumptions about what would have happened after you had emptied your wallet/your girlfriend’s purse so let’s ignore that.
The same kind of crimes happen in countries where guns aren’t prevalent and, if anything, in lower proportions with less victims of physical violence and that person might as well just have jumped on you to not give you the time to pull out your gun vs ran away with your money as soon as you gave it to them. At close range they had the advantage with their knife.
The need here isn’t guns but social programs to help the people who might resort to those means to live.
You’re making asumptions about why he was threatening our lives. He didn’t say give me your wallet, he could’ve wanted to kidnap and brutally rape then murder my ex. Fact of the matter is we have no way of knowing. It was a white dude in a trump shirt, does that change your mind? In any case, I suppose we’re ignoring all the assumptions and going with just the facts, yes? So in that case all we know is that he threatened our lives with a deadly weapon, what we don’t know is “why.” Turns out, when people threaten you with a deadly weapon, having one of your own greatly increases the liklihood of putting up a meaningful resistance regardless of the level of attempted victimization.
See, here you’re saying that other countries are less violent. That’s great, and it may be true, BUT, and here’s the kicker: I don’t live there, I live here. Here, where the rates of violence are higher, that is supposed to make me willing to be victimized at the hands of those without morals? Actually quite the opposite, I have morals, I can trust me. Know what I can’t trust? Other people or my government to keep me safe. Not only do criminals typically choose a time when the police aren’t visible to attack you, thus making them effective more as insurance agents who come after the problem, even if they are there they have no responsibility to defend you (Warren V DC, Castle Rock V Gonzales). So it is left upon me to either A) Change the entire country singlehandedly or B) Protect my own goddamn ass. Guess which one is remotely possible.
At close range they have the advantage with the knife IF* I don’t move. The Tueller principle (what you didn’t know you just quoted,) states that an attacker armed with a knife can get you within 21tf before you draw if you stand still. The drill is taught to teach you to move laterally as you draw, not to say guns are useless lmao. Fun fact you can shoot a guy who is within contact distance too.
The need is both. When those social programs work we won’t even need gun control, if they don’t, I need the guns to protect me against those it didn’t work on.
Now now, don’t go bringing math like “banning ARs would be ineffective because all rifles only account for 500/60,000 gun deaths/yr for a rate of 0.2% of our gun deaths” or “Harvard, in an attempt to debunk Kleck and Lott’s estimates at defensive gun use /yr and ‘disprove the good guy with a gun theory,’ have put forth ‘a more realistic estimate of 100,000 dgu/yr,’ which is still 40,000 more than our gun deaths/yr including suicide and 88,000 more than intentional firearm homicides/yr” into this.
Heck, I mentioned it elsewhere, my uncle used to live in Nunavik, didn’t own one, they had one hunting rifle per work team in their truck, but that’s exactly my point, he didn’t personally needed one, but he needed one while at work because his job would bring him all over the place and they could meet dangerous wildlife. The worst that could happen at home was having a bear on his deck in the morning and he would just call and a couple minutes later authorities were there to make it go away or do a catch and release.
From the get go my take is that a minority of people need guns. My uncle worked for the transport ministry in a location where the biggest town has a couple hundreds permanent residents, his job was to go check all the dirt roads around, no shit he would need a rifle for work. At home he clearly didn’t need one though because well… He was in town, at home!
Yeah, in remote locations the local authorities take care of wildlife that decide to come inside the towns, people don’t just go shooting bears left and right, that’s pretty obvious when you think about it for more than 2 seconds.
You’re just not willing to be rational or reasonable at all because you care more about your petty and stupid political agenda than you do about the truth.
That’s all that’s happening here. Just more immaturity from children who should not be allowed to vote – and you likely won’t be able to anymore soon, since you are too emotional to even stop the right wing from getting their way. Especially on this gun issue you’re so flippantly throwing the truth out over.
Boomers don’t need guns.
Dementia + lethal weapons. Terrible combination.
Pretty much no one in rich countries need guns these days, no matter the generation.
It’s really depressing. Yesterday I packed out an order for a hidden magnetic gun holder.
Like great. That is wonderful. Someone out there, possibly a paranoid deranged asshole, wants to keep a presumably loaded gun under their bedside table or desk…
Spend some time in Alaska before making comments like this.
Hey look, the exception that makes the “pretty much no one” part right! All the people in the American northern territories (Alaska, Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik) don’t represent one million in population out of 372 millions for the US + Canada, that’s less than 0.26% of the population or “pretty much no one” and not all of them need one (my uncle used to live in Nunavik, never owned a gun in his life), not all of them are legally allowed to own them and not all of them want one either… Wow, that % is getting smaller and smaller now, isn’t it?
Spend some time in class to learn reading comprehension and maths before making comments like this.
By your very own logic basically no that owns a gun commits a crime with them. Fewer than 500,000 reported gun related crimes against over 100 million gun owners in the us. For a .05% gun offense rate by gun owners, and that percentage gets smaller when you consider how many of those are repeat offenders and people illegally owning a fire arm.
Seems like the math is saying its not guns, but maybe something else these criminal offenders have in common that +99.95% don’t share with them…
That’s… Totally unrelated to what I said.
OP: Boomers don’t need guns
Me: Pretty much no one need guns in rich countries
You: Go to Alaska! They need guns!
Me: Yeah, they might need them, they’re covered by the “pretty much no one” in my first message
You: Rambling about gun crime stats like it proves something about people needing guns
I could have the same argument with someone saying they need a pickup truck or a 5000 sq ft house in the city. There’s a very big difference between wanting and needing and pretty much no one in rich countries need guns today.
I never brought up crime because that’s irrelevant to what I said and you doing it just proves how irrational you’ve become when it comes to this subject. You’re so used to just typing a bunch of stuff on your keyboard whenever someone says they don’t like guns that now that you see someone mentioning that it’s not a need (never mentioning my personal stance on the subject) you’re unable to make the difference, to you it’s just an anti gun message because anything that doesn’t go “yay guns!” is anti guns in your mind and you just can’t help it, you try and pull the discussion in the direction you know and talk about crime and homicide rates.
Again, it’s a discussion about needs and it wasn’t started by me, I just added that it doesn’t just apply to boomers.
How do you define “need” in this context? I’ve “needed” a gun before, when a dude pulled a knife on me in a walmart parking lot I moved my shirt and grabbed the grip, didn’t even draw it, and with that action he decided to turn and calmly walk away instead of stab me and my then-gf. Had I not had it he could have taken my shit, sliced my belly open (which if you’ve never seen that, gruesome, happened to a bartender I dished for one night when he tried to break up a bar fight), or forced my girlfriend at the time into his car for god knows what, instead, he decided “maybe the next one,” and I have a hard time believing that had nothing to do with me grabbing the grip. Did I “need” it because he was clearly threatening our lives? Did I not because I wasn’t stabbed yet? How do you define “need?”
Oh and just to be clear in case you (like me) neglect to read usernames sometimes: I am a different person.
You’re making assumptions about what would have happened after you had emptied your wallet/your girlfriend’s purse so let’s ignore that.
The same kind of crimes happen in countries where guns aren’t prevalent and, if anything, in lower proportions with less victims of physical violence and that person might as well just have jumped on you to not give you the time to pull out your gun vs ran away with your money as soon as you gave it to them. At close range they had the advantage with their knife.
The need here isn’t guns but social programs to help the people who might resort to those means to live.
You’re making asumptions about why he was threatening our lives. He didn’t say give me your wallet, he could’ve wanted to kidnap and brutally rape then murder my ex. Fact of the matter is we have no way of knowing. It was a white dude in a trump shirt, does that change your mind? In any case, I suppose we’re ignoring all the assumptions and going with just the facts, yes? So in that case all we know is that he threatened our lives with a deadly weapon, what we don’t know is “why.” Turns out, when people threaten you with a deadly weapon, having one of your own greatly increases the liklihood of putting up a meaningful resistance regardless of the level of attempted victimization.
See, here you’re saying that other countries are less violent. That’s great, and it may be true, BUT, and here’s the kicker: I don’t live there, I live here. Here, where the rates of violence are higher, that is supposed to make me willing to be victimized at the hands of those without morals? Actually quite the opposite, I have morals, I can trust me. Know what I can’t trust? Other people or my government to keep me safe. Not only do criminals typically choose a time when the police aren’t visible to attack you, thus making them effective more as insurance agents who come after the problem, even if they are there they have no responsibility to defend you (Warren V DC, Castle Rock V Gonzales). So it is left upon me to either A) Change the entire country singlehandedly or B) Protect my own goddamn ass. Guess which one is remotely possible.
At close range they have the advantage with the knife IF* I don’t move. The Tueller principle (what you didn’t know you just quoted,) states that an attacker armed with a knife can get you within 21tf before you draw if you stand still. The drill is taught to teach you to move laterally as you draw, not to say guns are useless lmao. Fun fact you can shoot a guy who is within contact distance too.
The need is both. When those social programs work we won’t even need gun control, if they don’t, I need the guns to protect me against those it didn’t work on.
Now now, don’t go bringing math like “banning ARs would be ineffective because all rifles only account for 500/60,000 gun deaths/yr for a rate of 0.2% of our gun deaths” or “Harvard, in an attempt to debunk Kleck and Lott’s estimates at defensive gun use /yr and ‘disprove the good guy with a gun theory,’ have put forth ‘a more realistic estimate of 100,000 dgu/yr,’ which is still 40,000 more than our gun deaths/yr including suicide and 88,000 more than intentional firearm homicides/yr” into this.
deleted by creator
Heck, I mentioned it elsewhere, my uncle used to live in Nunavik, didn’t own one, they had one hunting rifle per work team in their truck, but that’s exactly my point, he didn’t personally needed one, but he needed one while at work because his job would bring him all over the place and they could meet dangerous wildlife. The worst that could happen at home was having a bear on his deck in the morning and he would just call and a couple minutes later authorities were there to make it go away or do a catch and release.
“My uncle didn’t need a gun except when he did every day at work.”
“If there was a bear at his door he’d just call the bear guys and they’d come and make the bear leave.”
This is my favorite take in this entire thread.
deleted by creator
From the get go my take is that a minority of people need guns. My uncle worked for the transport ministry in a location where the biggest town has a couple hundreds permanent residents, his job was to go check all the dirt roads around, no shit he would need a rifle for work. At home he clearly didn’t need one though because well… He was in town, at home!
Yeah, in remote locations the local authorities take care of wildlife that decide to come inside the towns, people don’t just go shooting bears left and right, that’s pretty obvious when you think about it for more than 2 seconds.
But you carried bear spray or didn’t go into nature.
deleted by creator
My brother in Christ, bear mace IS a weapon.
deleted by creator
Lol no, bear mace is a weapon alright.
You’re just not willing to be rational or reasonable at all because you care more about your petty and stupid political agenda than you do about the truth.
That’s all that’s happening here. Just more immaturity from children who should not be allowed to vote – and you likely won’t be able to anymore soon, since you are too emotional to even stop the right wing from getting their way. Especially on this gun issue you’re so flippantly throwing the truth out over.
don’t forget drugs, tons of drugs
As something they need more or less of?
Because with the right dose of sedatives I can’t imagine this story happening at all.
that’s the only explanation that makes sense
They are buying so many of them now too. My dad keeps buying guns, doesn’t hunt, just preparing like the “news” he watches fears him to.
Not all boomers. They had hippies too
If they were really hippies, would they willingly have firearms? That seems very unusual for them.