this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
914 points (92.0% liked)

News

22890 readers
4387 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Run, you fucking piece of shit. Go go go gogogogogogog!

My niece told her grandmother about her fear of getting murdered at school. Feel that fear, asshole.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide

That's interesting because I was always told never to point a gun at anything I didn't want to kill.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee -4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

"Defensive use" does not implicitly imply pointing and shooting a gun at anyone. Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot. This IS a defensive use of a firearm in the clearest sense. And in such a scenario, it will not make the news for you to hear about nor is it likely to even be reported to law enforcement. And this is more likely to happen than drawing and shooting - because very few people actually want the extreme problems that will follow. Shooting someone is the last resort.

As far the this governor running away well, as governor it was very unlikely he was armed - he has a security detail carrying the guns for him, (just like any liberal person with money or power). And secondly, if you've ever taken a self-defense class for a carry permit, there is a checklist of things to do BEFORE you draw and shoot. And guess what, running away if at all possible is at the top of the list......

Still, this guy is an idiot and much like most loud idiots no matter their political beliefs they get the most ink. But there is more to this argument than the circle jerk that is happening here. You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.

I was raised around guns. Had some (superficial) training in the military with guns. I'm not a gun owner now, but while I think R and the right in general are absolutely culpable regarding our gun violence problems due to their refusal to acknowledge them or do a damn thing about them, I'm not anti-2A, and not being disingenuous with my comment here.

I was told by everyone who was ever responsible for training me in gun safety that you don't pull it out unless you are prepared to use it, and you should not be prepared to use it unless you are prepared to kill with it. I was also taught that brandishing was illegal, and more likely to escalate than defuse a situation.

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can be prepared to use it and not have to use it when the criminal decides to disengage.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

I'm not going to redo this entire discussion. You can see the other replies in this same comment chain that trod the same ground.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The brandishing part is why it's not reported or on the news. But that does not mean it doesn't happen successfully.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

So one of the best uses of a weapon defensively is to break fundamental gun safety rules that are in literally every gun safety course (and the law)? Aren't R the party of law and order?

[–] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

you realize 'brandishing' doesn't mean pointing at, right? you get that don't you?

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?height=800&def_id=18-USC-25375849-946262285&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:44:section:924

So, it's illegal to brandish a firearm. Pointing it at them is included in that definition, it seems to me, but not required to have broken the law. If I'm missing your point please clarify.

[–] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

fundamental gun safety rules

brandishing isn't a breaking a "fundamental gun safety rule". yes it can include pointing at someone, but simply SHOWING someone your holstered gun is considered brandishing. simply drawing your weapon can be considered brandishing. but it can also thwart people meaning to do harm. you insinuated that brandishing was only pointing a gun at someone, thus breaking one of the 4 fundamental safety rules.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

but simply SHOWING someone your holstered gun is considered brandishing. simply drawing your weapon can be considered brandishing. but it can also thwart people meaning to do harm

And in all those cases it would be illegal. The statement being made is that a good way to use your gun defensively is to break the law.

you insinuated that brandishing was only pointing a gun at someone, thus breaking one of the 4 fundamental safety rules.

In the original comment that I replied to it was unclear. (I've quoted that bit below.) I assumed he meant pointing it, and stayed with that assumption throughout the rest of the discussion. I see now I glossed over his clarification. So fair point I suppose, but I don't think it changes the overall argument that there's almost never a "good guy with a gun" around, which is at the top of the comment chain that the quoted comment below was replying to, and is the context for all this ensuing discussion.

The goal of defensive use of a gun isn’t homicide, you can’t compare that statistics

Independent of any argument about gun control, I absolutely agree with the comment at the top of the chain that it seems self-evident that private gun ownership in most parts of the country is doing more harm than good, and it seems exceptionally uncommon for a "good guy with a gun" to be the person who ends one of these shootings.

It's also not particularly hard to find stories where the cops show up and shoot the "good guy with a gun" afterward when there IS one, so personally, I'd rather take my chances unarmed since I've concluded that: It's statistically unlikely I'll be in a shooting, even more unlikely that I'll be able to do something about it if I am, and there's a nonzero chance that if I do, the cops (edit: or some other "good guy with a gun") will shoot me anyhow, thinking I'm the bad guy.

You and others can of course make a different decision, but let's not pretend that "Good guy with a gun" stories are anywhere near as common as "bad guy with a gun" stories.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot.

They can't be too concerned since the crime rate in America is functionally identical to countries with gun control (except there is much more murder).

The rest of your comment just undermines the gun laws you're trying to defend, functionally claiming "We need to keep selling guns to the public to keep them safe from the people we've sold guns to, but only if they can't run away or hide, even if they have a gun or a team of people with guns".