If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On October 04 2015 10:18 Jormundr wrote:

Actually there are 10 defensive gun scenarios in the US per year max.

On October 04 2015 10:20 acker wrote:

That's literally less than the number of newsworthy DGU incidents posted to Reddit in the span of a week, and dozens of times less than justified homicide by the police.

On October 04 2015 10:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Source please for DGU rate vs. Homicide rate? I'm unfamiliar with that comparison. Thanks

On October 04 2015 10:09 acker wrote:

Mississippi and other states used to have similar requirements, to prevent poor black people from buying guns against the KKK. I'm sorry to see that similar dreams aren't dead yet in the United States. Strangely enough, it's these Democrats who still believe in this...I've never quite understood why.

Defensive gun use in the USA outnumbers gun homicides by a factor of five to ten to eighty to two hundred; it's a very spotty area of study. Murder is, of course, more newsworthy.

On October 04 2015 10:58 Impervious wrote:

I've never actually thought about it that way. Now that I do I agree that it's not a good solution, but I still think that there needs to be much stricter licensing of guns, and much more to lose for irresponsible gun owners before they do something stupid that may actually injure or kill someone though.

On October 04 2015 11:02 acker wrote:


Fun fact: Martin Luther King applied for a concealed handgun license during his marches in then may-issue Alabama and Missouri. He was, of course, rejected. At which point he simply had armed volunteers posted around his house and scattered guns in his living room.

Maybe it kept him alive long enough to say what he had to say. Of course, he died the same way, so...

It's very similar to the reasons why Democrats get angry about voter registration and other such obstacles. The stakes are, of course, greater.

On October 04 2015 11:19 Impervious wrote:

I'm not American. I'm Canadian. My family has owned guns. Many of my friends own guns. If any one of them didn't keep them properly locked up at all times when they are not being used and attended to, or did not use them safely and attended to properly while not locked up, I would give them shit for it without hesitation.

A gun is a tool. In the right hands, it can be used for good purposes. In the wrong hands, it can kill people. Someone's right to have access to guns does not override the rest of society's right to be safe and secure in my mind, and virtually every other Canadian you will ever talk to will agree. We have a lot of guns up here too, but we're far more responsible as a whole with them. And keeping guns out of the hands of those who have any kind of reasonable risk of doing something stupid with them is part of that.

What you've shown is not that the government has a smart policy on gun control, what you've shown is that the government has been very racist in the past, and in a lot of ways still is, with regards to how they apply the laws in place. These are two separate, yet somewhat intertwined issues.

EDIT - another fun fact. The only place I've ever been shot at was one time I was in Detroit. I sure as hell am not going back there.....

On October 04 2015 12:18 zlefin wrote:
Defensive gun use isn't that important to compare to homicide, as the linked sources seem to be including many issues and cases that are of far less severity than homicide (i.e. defensive gun use case doesn't mean death was avoided). Looking over the wiki article and its talk page, there seem to be some problems with it as well.


All the more reason we need to get more reliable and thorough research in.
With thorough, sound research, we can get some actually reliable data to make decisions based off of; instead of what we have now.

On October 04 2015 12:31 acker wrote:


The literature the wiki links to should not be affected by the perceived quality of the article.

By definition, it's impossible to know if a DGU saves someone from death as they didn't die. If someone blows away a guy who's pointing a gun at a crowd, it's impossible to say if he prevented a mass murder for the same reasons.

All that can be said is that they had a reasonable fear of death at the hands of someone or something.

On October 04 2015 13:32 Jormundr wrote:

Reasonable fear, including the fear that cops have that people who aren't dead can hurt them.

On February 20 2012 03:05 Dr. Von Derful wrote:
Gun control only serves to make it harder (or impossible) for law abiding citizens to have and use them for either home defense, the illusion of safety, or whatever reason they feel they want to have said weapon. If someone wants to obtain a gun to kill someone, gun control isn't going to put up any barrier to prevent this to happen as they are most likely already obtaining this weapon illegally.

That being said, gun ownership only poses one problem in my mind and that is vigilantism or the "Make My Day" law. Unfortunately, a large contingent of gun owners aren't qualified to be using them and should they deem it necessary to use them to protect others, they only serve to endanger or further exacerbate a dire situation.

I'm all for relaxed gun control laws. I find it obscene that any government can remove the ability of a populus to defend itself from terrorist and tyrants alike. I do feel that there needs to be some sort of mandatory / provided class(es) or training that completely familiarizes the individual with the use of the weapon, proper storage, understanding of munition the weapon uses, maintenance of the weapon and situations in which a concealed carry permit would be merited.

On October 04 2015 17:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
animals kill other animals. humans are animals.

the planet is overpopulated with humans. so humans are killing other humans as they run out of space. the solution is a world population less than 1/10 what it is now.

1/2 the reason canada is such agreat place to live is the low # of people spread out over a large area. you don't like how things are goin' .. just move up north.

On October 04 2015 17:10 DucK- wrote:
As much as I am against guns, I can buy into arguments that you may need a gun for protection etc when the gun culture is already so deeply rooted in the US. What I feel can NEVER be justified are:

1. Rifles/military grade weapons
2. Automatic weapons

If you need a hunting rifle to protect against animals, sure I could accept that. If you need a concealed pistol to protect yourself, ok cool. But why the hell would you need to be carrying a AR15 around or in the house. ZERO justification. You're preparing yourself against a war in your backyard?