3345
3346

Semiautomatic (gfycat.com)

xMarwan91 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]ColonelSanders_1930 41ポイント42ポイント  (154子コメント)

This is why we need guns

[–]digiwolff 66ポイント67ポイント  (34子コメント)

You can bet that if this store owner hadn't been able to defend himself and he were shot to death by these thugs, you'd hear people saying how guns are to blame.

[–]IveHad8Accounts 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

Guns are the great equalizer that's why they're so controversial. It's pretty common for bad people to suffer a gunshot wound or two from well-intentioned individuals who happen to have a gun handy. But, I'm realizing in my advanced and cynical age, no one wants to make someone with a gun in to a hero anymore.

[–]angryandsilly -5ポイント-4ポイント  (8子コメント)

Very seldom a guy uses his gun successfully in self-defense is somehow better than the thousands of other times someone was shot by accident? I guess it's more noble to think of the fairy tale than the reality.

Every time I see an article about a 4 year old who shot himself\a sibling with a gun they found around the house, I think the exact opposite of your comment. This is exactly why we can't have nice things.

[–]digiwolff 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's actually a lot less rare then you think because the stories don't make headlines. Especially when they are resolved without any gunfire, which is how must gun self defense cases end.

Do you think the men robbing this store even owned their weapons legally? It's unlikely. The only person legislation can disarm is the store owner. I would prefer to live in a country which lets its citizens have firearms.

[–]KerbalGoBoom [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Self defense with a legally owned firearm that is discharged happens many times per day, so it isn't newsworthy on a national level. They often don't even make it into the local news. /r/dgu is a subreddit dedicated to instances that DO happen to make into the news.

The 4 year old playing with a gun happens far less often, so it is usually reported. It is also already illegal to have a firearm accessible to a child. These parents are already violating the law.

[–]digiwolff [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Just to add some facts, according to research by the University of Utah, there are around 600 accidental shooting deaths in the US per year. According to the LA times, there were 259 justifiable firearms homicides in 2012. Those are cases where someone was killed by a firearm and it was deemed reasonable self defense. However, the vast majority of firearms self defense cases do not even involve the firing of a weapon, let alone the death of an attacker.

Even this case would be missed by that statistic because the attackers are alive. This is anecdotal, but I would estimate that over 90% of gun self defense cases I read about stop a threat with the mere display or indication of possessing a firearm to an attacker. Add to it that we most certainly cannot estimate the number of potential robbers and the like who elect not to break into homes and threaten people out of knowledge the homeowner may be armed.

[–]angryandsilly [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That's fair. How about accidental injuries that don't result in death? How about unjustified shootings simply because a gun was available and a situation escalated to violence?

[–]digiwolff [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, here's one way to look at it. If I compare us to Australia.. The average Australian has a .0011% chance of being murdered this year. The average American has a .0034% chance of being murdered. This of course doesn't account for the massive amount of hang related homicide in America, which someone like myself doesn't risk involvement in. Because of my love for shooting and my interest in guns both as a hobby and for protection, I would gladly choose to live in a country which allows me the freedom to own firearms with a murder rate of .0034% instead of a country where I cannot that has a murder rate of .0011%.

Of course, it would be silly to assume that our murder rate would match Australia's if we outlaw guns simply because our culture is so different. Our murder rate doesn't really scare me, certainly enough to want to abandon my hobby and eliminate citizens' ability to defend themselves and our nation.

[–]TheMarlBroMan [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If you think the ratios of defensive gun use to violence is 1 thousands youre just willfully ignorant.

[–]angryandsilly [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

No, I was just making an example. I don't like the tone here - this guy successfully used self defense and only injured the attacker and not some bystander walking behind him. yay! Self defense: success - guns=good. I can give you 1000 articles about an accidental discharge that resulted in death or injury as well. Self defense: not successful - guns = bad. One instance shouldn't be dictating your opinion, and there's not really any good gun data available to make an informed decision - thanks NRA. The little we have isn't enough. If 100 people died by accident to 50 people who were killed in lawful self-defense, would it be worth it? I think the gun lobby would have us think so.

[–]TheMarlBroMan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Conservative (as in the adjective not the political party) estimates put defensive gun uses at ~60k per year. Higher estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. The disparity in the classification of a DGU.

Each of these events could have saved just one life or dozens. That is an unknowable data point no matter how much research we put into it

I dont base my decisions about guns on a single data point. Stop acting like I am

[–]davy_crockett 36ポイント37ポイント  (67子コメント)

I think most gun control advocates would agree, and would support laws that allow the store owner to own a gun and use it in these contexts.

They would argue that we can have situations like this and still have a well-regulated gun system with background checks and other kinds of limitations.

[–]FLBiker 47ポイント48ポイント  (63子コメント)

But how is that different from the current system? We have background checks and limitations now, so what are gun control advocates pushing for that wouldn't make it harder, or impossible, for this man to protect himself and his livelihood the exact way he did in this video?

[–]spitting_nonsense 34ポイント35ポイント  (10子コメント)

Well said.

Adding to the irony is that the rifle appears to be an AR-15. The kind you "can't use for protection because it's too big and cumbersome" [citation needed - pretty sure that was a H Clinton quote]

[–]FLBiker 23ポイント24ポイント  (8子コメント)

Absolutely. This is the epitome of the AR-15 being a perfect defensive tool, and why a 30 round magazine is entirely appropriate when a gang of 4 or 5 armed men are ramming their way into your occupied building. In the video commentary they said he seemed to have forgotten that his pistol was already sitting on the desk in front of him, but I'm sure he just realized it wasn't going to be enough to protect him against that many intruders.

[–]nutbastard 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

He was probably conserving ammo until the next level and didn't realize that he'd made it to the Boss fight.

[–]TheSherbs [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

His pistol looked like a revolver, 4 dudes, 6 -7 rounds depending on caliber and adrenaline shooting through your system like an experienced kayaker through rapids means you're probably trying to fumble with a reload while they are in the store.

EDIT: Correction, looks like a semi auto, even then because of the short barrel, much harder to put rounds on target in a high stress environment.

[–]Atomic235 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I really prefer a shotgun for self-defense. With any kind of rifle you're going to penetrate multiple surfaces, get dangerous ricochet and/or cover very long distances. The potential for hitting something other than your target is very high, even if you are a good and careful shooter.

Also, the guy only fired a handful of shots and they all took off running immediately. He didn't need a 30 round mag, let alone a second weapon. I think mag and weapon-type regulations are pretty useless, but I'm just saying. Most people, especially burglars, are total cowards.

[–]OllieWillie [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Is instances of 4-5 gang members trying to get you are so frequent in the US that you need 30 round magazine semiautomatic rifles on you the country may as well just shut up shop. It's done.

[–]windowpuncher [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

>cumbersome

Hardly. If I can fit my M4 in a hmmvw with 4 other guys and all of our gear I can fit that shit anywhere.

[–]TheSherbs [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But how is that different from the current system? We have background checks and limitations now,

The main difference, ideally, is that the ATF would be allowed to do their god damn job. One of the former reps from my state of Kansas, Tiahart, basically stripped the ATF from being able to enforce any of these gun laws on any kind of meaningful level. Give the ATF back their teeth before we start coming up with more regulations and allow them to actually enforce the law how they should have been in the first place.

[–]gfdugdfuigdiru -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

[–]FLBiker 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Have you read what's in that link? The idea to "close the gun show loophole" means trying to prevent, or require a background check, for every private sale of a firearm. It's impossible to enforce, which means only the law abiding will do it. It will prevent exactly 0 crimes to make private sales illegal. I absolutely believe there should be a way to open up the NICS to private checks so sellers have the option to do a background check before they sell, but making it a requirement is a waste of time and will go over about as well as the Assault Weapons Ban (Republican Super Majority in the House and Senate the very next election).

[–]gfdugdfuigdiru [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There are plenty of things I'm not allowed to sell to you. Drugs, organs, whatever. Is that more enforceable? Maybe it shouldn't be legal to sell or transfer a firearm from one person to another. Would being required to buy from a licensed dealer really infringe on your personal right to own a gun?

and one edit: The idea that "only the law abiding will follow the law" is a fallacy. Things that are made illegal are pushed to a black market, usually making them more expensive and thus harder to get. Maybe not eliminating the activity in question, but certainly lessening.

[–]semioticmadness 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're not wrong, but it's not like we can get systems up and running to make background checks faster/better/easier until we have a law that say we allow for that. It has to happen in gradual steps. And maybe eventually we do open the system to private sellers. We just all have to agree first.

[–]FLBiker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

NICS is run by the FBI and they have regulations, but I don't think that it would require a new law to open it up to public use. I suspect that it could be done with an Executive Order, but even if it required a law, the egg that has to come before the chicken here is allowing (not requiring) private parties to look up buyers. Yes, the FBI would need to revamp access to the system, so it would probably take a couple years before you could turn it on, but I know 100% of gun owners don't want to sell to criminals and I can't imagine any opposition from the public on allowing us access into NICS as long as it's not a requirement that is going to cost us money and make things a pain in the ass.

[–]Freeballa -4ポイント-3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Loopholes. Anyone can go into a gun show and purchase most firearms without a background check. Not to mention we need expanded background checks for mental issues.

[–]blueboy1988 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Except there is no loophole. There has to be a background check if the person selling has an ffl, which a majority do. If it is a private seller there doesn't have to be a background check like any other private sale. Mental illness is reported throught he courts for background checks.

[–]TheMarlBroMan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Have you beem to gun shows? 99% of all gun sellers at those require background check. The amount of guns that are involved is crimes that are purchased privately is statistically nonexistent.

[–]KerbalGoBoom [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Loopholes. Anyone can go into a gun show and purchase most firearms without a background check.

This is not true. It is literally a complete lie from anti-gun politicians. Any firearms dealer has to run a background check, period. Gunshows included.

This is a video of a guy trying exactly that and getting denied. He also tried to buy an automatic weapon and was also denied: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEihkjKNhN8

Some states allow a private citizen to sell their rifle to another citizen without a background check. This is the REAL loophole. Some of these states also require you to verify the person is a resident (via state-issued ID) of the state before selling it.

Not to mention we need expanded background checks for mental issues.

The issue with this is HIPPA. I would support amending HIPPA to require reporting of potentially dangerous mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, however this data must still be protected information and the background check must return a simple approval/denial.

[–]OldSkoolLiberal [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think most gun control advocates would agree, and would support laws that allow the store owner to own a gun and use it in these contexts.

In letter they would, but not in spirit. They will throw up so many legal hurdles, and so much legal peril after a shoot, that most people just end up leaving the gun at home, and then watching helplessly while their family gets murdered.

[–]razor_beast [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Those same gun control advocates want to ban the type of weapon and magazine he used to protect himself. They also fail to understand we already have background checks. We already have limitations on who can own firearms.

Most gun control advocates don't know a fucking thing about firearms. They don't know how they're bought, sold and used. They have no business telling anyone what kind of guns I should and shouldn't have or what laws we should or shouldn't have because they get all their "information" from fictional sources such as movies, television and video games. They don't even know the difference between between a semi-automatic only firearm and a select fire fully automatic firearm. They think 5.56x45 is a "high powered round" or that .50 BMG can derail trains and other utter nonsense.

This is why us pro-gun people are winning so hard core right now legislatively. We have all the facts, knowledge and experience on our side and thanks to the Internet, YouTube in particular, whenever an anti-gun person lies or just plain makes shit up they can be fact checked instantly and have their emotionally driven drivel thrown out immediately.

I'm as liberal as the next guy but I'm sick of democrats pushing their gun control agenda when it's not what the majority of people want. If they didn't get the message after our rejection of their bullshit legislation in the aftermath of Sandy Hook when will they ever learn?

[–]aDAMNPATRIOT 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nope.

[–]shadovvvvalker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

To shoot thieves?