• @SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      67 months ago

      That makes sense because of mishandling, mismanagement, and… Wanting to die sometimes…

      Most flight incidents happen on departure and arrival so of course most gun mishaps happen at home.

      Guess what I’m saying is it all makes sense one way or the other.

    • @RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      67 months ago

      I got downvoted real bad when I pointed this out to someone who said “making guns illegal just takes them away from people who need to defend themselves.”

      The defense excuse of gun ownership is a myth. It causes way more harm than good.

      • @aksdb@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        97 months ago

        That aside: the easier it is for good guys to get a gun, the easier it is for bad guys too.

        And: where does that idea of a good guy stopping a bad guy come from even? If the bad guy is the better shoot, he still wins the fight. If he catches the good guy by surprise (which is likely given that bad acts are an action and not a reaction), he also has the upper hand.

        So more guns solves exactly nothing, it only increases risks everywhere.

        • prole
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          It comes from the NRA. It was a slogan. Propaganda.

          • @aksdb@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            17 months ago

            Could have guessed as much. Bullshit propaganda that could be debunked with an ounce of critical thinking. But people who defend that shit are probably too dumb anyway.

            Ironically there is likely a large overlap between these people and people who deny covid, climate change etc with “tHiNk CrItIcAlLy”.

      • @jasory@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        07 months ago

        Not a gun nut. But these studies don’t actually test any hypothesis about defensive gun use.

        It is easily probable that it is simply the case that people obtain firearms for defense against an existing threat or are the threat themselves( i.e are susceptible to far greater violent events than the norm). In order to test that guns actually are ineffective in self-defense you need to compare it to actual incidents of violence towards the gun user.

        • @poopkins@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          17 months ago

          Do you know why we don’t have such studies in the United States? The firearms lobby has ensured that it is prohibited from being researched.

          • @jasory@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            -17 months ago

            Yes, because the CDC is the only source of academic research in the US. Activist talking points are unfortunately rarely accurate. The Dickey Amendment reduced research into gun violence, but under no circumstances did it eliminate; it’s also been changed since it was first passed.

            The real reason why gun violence research is often poor quality is the same as why most social research is poor quality: high variability, unaccounted variables, differences in interpretation of questionnaire’s, unreliability of self-reporting, and the fact that most studies are conducted by parties interested in a specific result.

            • @poopkins@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              17 months ago

              Thanks for the insightful response, those are legitimate points. I was confused by your first sentence and presume that was meant sarcastically?

      • @ByteWizard@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -13
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Because it’s just another scare tactic. We know there are some dangers having firearms around.

        That’s why we want to make sure the goverment isn’t the only people allowed to have them. First comes registration, then confiscation, then the tyranny.

        • @yesman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          87 months ago

          Andy Weaver, the Branch Dividians, the Black Panthers, Native Americans, Mexico, the Philippines, Hawaiians, Germany, Japan, Spain, England, Canada, and Italy have all resisted the US government with arms.

          But OK, you’re going to keep 'em in line with you’re pew pew pew. Meanwhile that danger that you acknowledge is real.

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            English
            8
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            The Black Panthers one is particularly ironic given the NRA’s full-throated support of gun control laws in California (passed by good ol Ronnie R. when he was governor) that happened once black people started arming themselves.

            And nothing has changed. Never forget Philando Castile. The only reason they feel empowered is because the ones who actually want to take guns from “certain people” happen to agree with them ideologically.

        • prole
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -4
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Buddy, the “government” isn’t scared of you and your buddies LARPing in the woods cheap AR-15s and tacticool gear.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            -37 months ago

            Hamas demonstrated that the most advanced military occupation in the world can not stop a determined people from fighting back.

            … course, Israel is demonstrating that the most advanced military occupation in the world will have its unlimited bloody revenge, so-

            • prole
              link
              fedilink
              English
              37 months ago

              Hamas was also born of generations of blood feuds and escalating revenge. Generational shit.

              Compare that to… (checks notes) wanting people to get vaccinated before going into public during a worldwide pandemic.