The act of carrying is inherently more dangerous than not. That is an indisputable fact that you don't even need statistics to know. I am infinitely more likely to die by a firearm if it exists in the first place rather than not.
People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.
If you're not an ammosexual, why do you appeal to the constitution? This amendment clearly refers to a militia. Are you using the conservative court's opinion for some reason? Would you support this amendment being amended?
Edit: Genuinely asking, just curious
Personal liability insurance typically costs around $8 to $10 a year for every $100,000 in coverage https://www.policygenius.com/homeowners-insurance/what-is-personal-liability-insurance
Even if this source is off by a factor of 10, what person can purchase a $400+ firearm but can't afford the same in yearly insurance?
But it's pay to drive, right? I suppose driving isn't mentioned in the bill of rights, but I'd argue neither is the individual right to wield a firearm.
it's like 5.99 to watch 45 minute shows with 5+ 120 second ad breaks. I instantly canceled and went an alternate route
And it's ✨ open source ✨
Or use Free Tax USA for completely free federal filing
I think a divorce is like $80 where I am, but if you have to go to court obvs it's a lot more. I spent almost nothing on my wedding, granted it was just friends and was an elopement. Marriage has big tax advantages for some, and it's the only way my spouse was getting health insurance to survive this godforsaken wasteland. It also guarantees that they get a slice of my income if the unforeseeable happens and we split so they can survive.
I think people should not see marriage as the end goal, but be pragmatic about its costs and benefits, which I think you are getting at too
I got married to share healthcare and other tax advantages and do not plan to have children. I'm under 30 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I appreciate hearing a differing view from my own here, genuinely.
I listen to NPR frequently and I have heard many segments about the border and especially asylum seekers.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/12/1212058889/migrants-u-s-southern-border-historic-numbers-why
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221006083/immigration-border-election-presidential
I see this a lot, "the liberal media doesn't want you to know!" or "why isn't anyone talking about this!" meanwhile everyone including the lefty sources are indeed talking about it.
The problem is, only one party wants to do anything to actually ease the crisis. Republicans are a half step away from suggesting land mines at the border because trying to escape to the land of the free for a better life is illegal, and that apparently should mean death for you.
I provided a link to evidence illustrating my point that the presence of a gun presents a greater risk of dying to a firearm. The study is about a different situation, but both deal with the presence of firearms. I would welcome evidence to the contrary rather than insults because I am engaging you here in good faith.
I say adding a gun to any situation increases the chances of a gun being used simply because it is present. More guns in more places = more opportunities for them to be used. I think that is simple logic, and again I welcome you to refute it.
This is something that requires people who carry weapons in public to be capable of providing restitution to anyone harmed by their actions. I can't see a massive harm in it other than disproportionately affecting the poor.