@BoomerSpooner - We are in complete agreement on this. I personally would never post a photo online of me holding a firearm (assuming I even owned one). However there MIGHT be an uncredited photo of someone who looks a lot like me clearing a room of a live fire house on the website of a well known tactical training school. 😂
In all seriousness, if a person chooses to post a photo of themselves at a range, they are making a statement about themselves, their hobbies and mindset. If someone doesn’t want to cuddle a person because of such a photo, I view that as a win-win. That photo may have prevented two incompatible people from having a very awkward and anxiety inducing experience together.
@JohnR1972
Tell me how the use of the chart's label of MURDER fits in with your last post.
I'm asking if categories were left out...(sloppy work) OR are justifiable homicides murders?
@jplemmon
My bad. I misunderstood your picture request. How many did you want again?
@MisterPatience Ah, I missed your point the first time. “Murder” is a lot more subjective than homicide. If person A intentionally shoots and kills person B, that IS homicide by definition. However, it MAY be murder (premeditated) or it MAY be “reckless homicide”, or it MAY be manslaughter, or it MAY be “justifiable homicide”. Those classifications come down to what the local prosecutor wants to do with the situation and how much evidence is available.
The point is it IS homicide but whether it is murder is a legal question for the prosecutor to charge and a jury to deliberate. A lot of people wrongly conflate “homicide” and murder. In the image I posted, my point was that the majority of “firearm related deaths” are actually suicides. The image was from Pew Research who normally does a good job in their data collection and analysis but in this case they were sloppy in their terminology. The category labeled “murder” should have been labeled “homicide”.
Baiting is not allowed on the forums. See you in a few days [netrunner]
I'm sure that threads like this have to be mystifying to our friends across the pond
The CDC has previously released reports that estimate defensive firearms use at anywhere from half a million to 2.5 million times per year. So even at the low end, that's half a million times per year that citizens (and sometimes civilians) are able to protect their lives against criminals. Half a million innocent lives protected every year. That's worth thinking about.
For what it's worth, I agree completely that merely having a firearm in the home isn't much use. The civilian has to take on the duty of being a citizen with training, practice, and developing the willingness to use deadly force in self-defense. The very best weapons (whether firearms, knives, pepper spray, tasers, etc) do you absolutely no good if you aren't ready and willing to use them when necessary. Worse, the weapon can be taken from you and used against you.
There’s a reason no one would invade the United States. The state of Wisconsin per capita is the the fourth largest militia in the world based on gun ownership. This country has a huge problem with mental illness not guns.
Reported and reviewed. Removing due to politics. [CharlieBear]
walking around with a gun like it's the wild west.
No, that's not true.
What most people think of as “the NRA” is actually 2 different organizations. One part is organized under U.S. tax law as a 501(c) 3 organization which is prohibited from engaging in political campaigns or lobbying. The other NRA organization is organized as a 501(c) 4 which can engage in political activity (but there are limits as to what percentage of their activity can be political in nature).
If you’ve ever been the victim of a burglary, you know that firearms are a target of criminals. I don’t think that I would want to broadcast what I have on the internet.
@toolie12 - Or they will choose another place to rob knowing that you're packing heat.
(unless you also broadcast when you won't be home)
.
Or they will choose another place to rob knowing that you're packing heat.
I choose to approach this with a bit of levity (can you keep a bobcat as a housepet?)
As somebody who enjoys his poops , I am disappointed that this is not a thread about such activity
@pmvines poops are far less gross
@CaptainChaos I can tell you firsthand that tanks are a BLAST!!
No, seriously, they're alot of fun to operate and use as intended. They also do cool things like flatten Mercedes Benzes when driven over such cars (might have seen that happen in 1991 ...)
@CaptainChaos
I want one.
There is a disappointing lack of tank dealerships in my area.
The point brought up by @natickben isn't about whether or not women having things to protect themselves keeps them safe or not. I'm sure there are plenty of women who luckily had something and were able to protect themselves with it. While I personally haven't much ventured in learning about this topic, his point, being they are more likely to have it used against them , makes logical sense to me based on the things I already know. Women are typically less physically stronger than men, and the likelihood that she'll be overpowered or one day her partner wakes up and decides to turn against her with his or hers that he knows about is also high. Also men account for most physically violent attacks, especially against adults. Women, who like them, are low lives may tend to either go after children, much more vulnerable adults, use emotional, and psychological warfare such as reputation destruction or use other men to do their dirty work at times, than themselves get physical. So all that further supports what Natickben said.
Also, that's not to say men who are horrible don't, and can't use those other means too. They can and do, just not really to the same extent that women generally might, because they've other options that they apparently use.
It's a personal decision at the end of the day whether or not anyone keeps things to protect themselves. Though that's the awfully sad reality of the matter.
"This is convo getting very close to the political issues, but I'll just say that women are far far more likely to have a gun in the home used against them than in self defense. It's not empowering, it's endangering. Not just to them, but to others in the home. That's not opinion, that's data.
https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/ "
Now should someone have it shown in their profile picture?
At the end of the day it's up to the individual and the platform's decision.
Would I feel put off by it?
Maybe, especially depending on how they are handling or posing with it. Though like others said, I can choose not to engage with them.
@Mike403 "Or they will choose another place to rob knowing that you're packing heat.
(unless you also broadcast when you won't be home)"
You probably don't really need to broadcast it for them to know. If people want to know something, they can find ways to and sometimes those you think you trust most can be the ones to set you up. I'm not refering to you personally, though generally speaking.
The point... isn't about whether or not women having things to protect themselves keeps them safe or not... point, being they are more likely to have it used against them...
So, in summation.... your point is that women are better off unarmed and completely vulnerable, rather than armed and only "likely" vulnerable?
This makes zero sense.
I'm gonna let you finish, but T-34 is the best tank movie in the world. It's about Russian POWs escaping a Nazi camp.
Cool scene
Full free movie
@TxTom "So, in summation.... your point is that women are better off unarmed and completely vulnerable, rather than armed and only "likely" vulnerable?
This makes zero sense."
I think that would be my summation... if I were a nutjob or a dummy, which neither I am. Although, you may or may not think I am, and that's your business. However, that's not what I said either, though you're free to take it however you like. Maybe even sprinkle some sugar on it, because I know some pills can be tough to take straight up for some.
@Lovelight No, I don't think you're a dummy or a nutjob. I don't know you. Nor am I sure what pill you're referring to.
If a woman's weapon is likely to be used against her, what's the solution?
I agree with everything you wrote after that point.
@TxTom Cool...
"If a woman's weapon is likely to be used against her, what's the solution?"
I'd say there's really none, because in short it depends.
Depending on the context not having it could be what saves one, while having it could be what gives her reduced of fighting chance, and vice versa. It all depends. In other words, having things to protect oneself isn't necessarily safer, it has risks that need to be known, taken into account, and that one needs to try to eliminate in whichever ways are best to do so.
It's a combination of the context, what it happens to need most, a woman's comfort with her chosen method of protection, other forms of protection she has in her arsenal, what she's up against... which can be subject to change, and some luck. The key isn't just to think one size fits all, or that one approach is necessarily better than another. Though to consider the nuances, associated risks with each, and weigh them to see what may work best for someone or in different contexts. I think this was also what @natickben was trying to get across.
I also personally think that if women, or men, are able it's best to take... lessons that allow them to hopefully be better able to defend themselves with their bare hands, regardless of whether or not one has some form of a weapon. I also believe in learning or becoming better at de-escalation techniques, along with gaining some knowledge about the mentalities of who one may be more likely to have to go against. It's said knowledge is power, so I think that should also to some extent or another be part of one's toolkit. The best protection is prevention whenever possible, so it's also good to learn about how one might be able to prevent whether altogether in some instances, or reducing the impacts of things escalating.
So in summary, I'd say, it's about knowing oneself, and the things you, a general you, think or know will give you the best chance at being safe given your circumstances or what have you.
Also I'm not a self defense anything, so I'd advise to consult with a well vetted expert that you trust on it.
I have no issues with self defense generally except for some of the psychotic cases you see in stand your ground type states.
I do, however, have issues with people who decide to wave their guns and targets in people's faces as a show of intimidation and, of course, to overcompensate for "shortcomings" shall we say. Depending on the profile pic used, I think this should also apply. Why is there a need to show intimidation when you are trying to give someone comfort? If you need to show your interest in the gun hobby, why not just use it on your 4chan profile pic?
This is basically what happened with the guy who targeted me with his pics of gun range targets on this thread. Thank goodness he's gone.
Personally, I don't know why political topics are removed on here but guns are given free range (no pun intended). Obviously, it creates a lot of tension and has nothing to do with what this site is truly about.
In 1980, Mossad Ayoob wrote a book entitled, “In The Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection”.
In it, Mossad wrote “This book makes no attempt to convince the private citizen to acquire or carry firearms. It speaks to those who have already made the decision to do so, and endeavors only to advise them in the legal, ethical, and practical use of the deadly weapons they already own.”
I wholeheartedly agree with Mossad that training is essential and that a person who just owns a firearm but is not properly trained in how and WHEN to use it is likely to be a danger to themselves and others.
I have trained at facilities where some students have been sent home early and advised by the instructors to sell their firearm(s). The instructors were not being mean, they simply recognized the students in question did not possess the right mindset to safely own a firearm. For instance, one student could not bring herself to shoot at what was clearly a mannequin because “it looked too human”. The instructors worked with her to overcome her hesitancy but when she repeatedly said, “I can’t do it” they gently and respectfully encouraged her to sell her firearm because if she can’t shoot a mannequin, she would never be able to use it against an intruder and she would likely become a statistic of a gun owner who had their own gun taken and used against them.
To anyone who chooses to own (and especially anyone who carries) a firearm, please make sure you get professional training. It is not just a matter of being able to consistently put holes near the center of a paper target. There are many other things you need to know and practice to be a responsible firearm owner.