politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Guns only have a role of homicide, they lead to more homicides, so they should always be restricted.
Guns are a force equalizer, they make victimizing anyone- weak or strong, a risk
Then why is it more likely to die from a gunshot if you own a gun? Aren't guns supposed to make sure you don't die?
A lot of reasons, people who feel the need to buy a gun are likely at higher risk of gun crime. For any significantly high enough group of people who own guns, some will be reckless and hurt themselves or provoke others. People are unempathetic and don't realize pointing a gun at others constitutes a deadly threat- to name a few reasons. Why do* you think?
Guns are designed so that their owner can immobilize a threat to their life as effectively as possible, that doesn't mean all people use them for their intended use case. Cars aren't designed to crash, but the more people that drive cars increases the risk of crashes. I personally am in a lot of cities at night- and would feel safer with a gun. I'm not exactly of a threatening stature, I'd rather be able to defend myself in those situations than just be at the mercy of basically the person attacking me who's bigger than me. There are tons of examples of people be paralyzed, getting concussions, or killed by people attacking them with fists, blunt objects, or knives when they're getting mugged. There is only one way I could (if carrying a gun were possible) credibly deter that.
I assume you must be referring to just giving them your wallet, because having a gun doesn't really protect you from hand to hand violence by an attacker. Fights are risky and guns are a much much better tool for aggression than responding to a suddenly violent situation. Unless they're calling you out from across the saloon, by the time you know you're in danger they're usually too close. Carrying a gun just means you also get to give them your gun, not that you start blasting the bad guys.
You are naive to assume that always resolves it, there are also various reasons that someone cannot afford to do that.
Why not?
Agreed, I'd rather people have the opportunity to get what they can to minimize that risk.
That's not true, you can shoot someone who is attacking you still. You can shoot someone who's running at you with a weapon.
Why do you assume they would know you have a gun?
How many times have you heard of muggers randomly beating people up once they've surrendered their valuables in your local area vs. just online paranoia? You say "you spend time in cities at night", but I've lived in cities for decades, including walking late at night, seen drug dealing and been shouted at by mentally ill homeless people, and both never have felt the need to be armed and also never needed to be so. My preparation for a questionable area is "don't bring a lot of cash", not fantasies about how someone holding me up with a knife will somehow let me draw and use a gun while they stand there. Handguns just aren't good self-defense weapons.
And if you can afford a gun, you can afford to lose the loose cash in your wallet. You'd need to be mugged regularly for a gun to be cheaper than the cash.
Minimizing risk is giving them the money, or failing that actual self-defense courses for close combat, not imagining a ranged weapon will protect you when at arms length. There's a reason self-defense courses don't teach gun-fu, but instead de-escalation/situational awareness, followed by running away, and only then if that's not immediately available, stunning attacks that give you the window to escape. Even highly skilled combatants want to get away from a fight ASAP. If you try to point a gun at someone with a knife to you, you're likely to just end up in a wrestling match followed by likely losing it and getting shot.
What scenario are you imagining where your attacker is running at you waving a knife from a distance? That's just not how muggings work. Even in this scenario, anything under 6 meters means the attacker stabs you before you draw and fire.
I hear much more about random assualts than muggings. I've been nearly assaulted several times, and have been randomly sexually assaulted twice.
I mean, honestly, how tall are you and how much do you weigh?
Drawing doesn't take long if you regularly practice. It's not a western stand off.
Talk to anyone in law enforcement, a gun is always better than your hands, at any range. Self defense simply isn't practical for most smaller people. I don't want a fair fight, I want to live.
Not about the money it's about safety, also not about cash, it's also losing very important documents(Visa/Residency, passport, etc) or losing a phone that you may be stranded without(a genuine danger in towns/small cities in certain countries).
Yes running away is good, but not always feasible, a lot of the time if you're sure to lose a fight you aren't an Olympic runner either.
Don't point a gun at anyone unless you plan to pull the trigger, immediately.
You misunderstand the "21 foot rule" that is comparing draw speed to someone sprinting at you reaching you. It has nothing to do with you losing a fight. A gun in a melee range fight is still at least as if not more than effective than a knife (there are many examples of people being stabbed but still saving themselves from the assailant). Squeeze the trigger as fast as you can versus thrusting in and out/slashing. A lot of comparisons people try in self defense training is 1 shot/cut = immobalized- that's often not right. A knife you can take the brunt of with your arms, yes you will be severely injured, but a gun can quickly and easily penetrate to vital organs.
But of course yeah nothing will save you 100% of the time, but it's a whole lot better than nothing.
I didn't say "hands", I said "close combat". Both of those links are about ranking self-defense tools. One of them is literally from a PI and professional self-defense instructor. Not a cop, but more relevant to the topic of individual self-defense. You seem to think your smaller stature means other weapons will fail but your gun will be a trump card, but once you're in close-combat, firing a gun is just as much a conflict of brawn and martial skill, and the way you have to use a gun makes it easier to control or disarm than a knife with a more limited area of danger. Yeah, if you get that area on exactly the right spot and have the wherewithal to pull the trigger before things move again, you win, but you're likely not that skilled in gun-fu and even if you get off a shot that hits the target it won't disable your attacker.
In close combat guns are too easy to disarm, too hard to use effectively, and with a high likelihood of being used against you. They're fine for home defense, if you expect to be shot at, or have a known danger approach from range, but your example worries were muggings.
Once you're in hand to hand with someone wielding a knife, or who is just physically more powerful than you, you're probably going to lose. The knife fighter doesn't just close to knifing range and trade blows like a video game, they're grabbing your arm and starting a grapple. Fights are chaotic and sometimes the weaker or more poorly armed (for the circumstances of the fight) person wins, but once the distance is closed, a gun is at a disadvantage. Cops, who spend time training for these situations, miss most of their shots from short range, and that's with the advantage of usually being able to start the confrontation with their gun out and ready. Once someone can actually grab the gun/arm of the shooter, it's not a gunfight anymore and most other weapons are superior.
No one on any of the self-defense sites say this, and the self-defense trainer explicitly says a gun is worse. It just sounds like you have fantasies from movies and explicitly ignore real life experts who don't tell you what you want to hear.
The irony
How so? Of course if more people have guns there is more of a risk of someone getting shot, I don't think anyone denies that.
They make a lot of things a fatal risk. Bad relationship? Road rage? Wanna be famous? Guns have let all these things be motivation for murder.
Kitchen knife
Baseball bat
Car
All far from comparable alternatives to a gun. Seriously, i encourage you to look up baseball bats in road rage incidents, and imagine a gun instead. And all of these things have roles outside of homicide.