SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Telconi]

So do guns. Unless you think my simple posession of a firearm manages to Avada Kedavra poor Lily Potter for accross the globe.

How many schools had people getting killed because someone walked in one day yelling "Avada Kedavra" at everyone they saw?

How many schools had people getting killed because a someone walked in one day who owned a machine gun?

[Ors Might]

So do guns. Unless you think my simple posession of a firearm manages to Avada Kedavra poor Lily Potter for accross the globe.

How many schools had people getting killed because someone walked in one day yelling "Avada Kedavra" at everyone they saw?

How many people have been killed by a tiny bisexual dude simply owning a pistol?

[Telconi]

How many schools had people getting killed because someone walked in one day yelling "Avada Kedavra" at everyone they saw?

How many people have been killed by a tiny bisexual dude simply owning a pistol?

Wait, you own a pistol, and safely care for it? How wicked of you.

[Ors Might]

How many people have been killed by a tiny bisexual dude simply owning a pistol?

Wait, you own a pistol, and safely care for it? How wicked of you.

Even worse. I’m a poor twenty year old trying to save up enough money to buy a pistol, for self defense purposes. Don’t be surprised if you see me on the news with the headline “School Shooter Murders Ten Thousand”

[The Two Jerseys]

I see stochastic terrorism doesn’t exist all of a sudden. Glad to see you’re on the side of free speech now.

Stochastic terrorism requires someone to act out on them. They're not Harry Potter spells that can drop people dead. Way to be disingenuous.

So the Proud Boys aren't really a threat then?

Good to know.

[Kowani]

You misunderstanding nihilism is your fault.

Yes...but not compared to other things. “In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.”
Note that it doesn’t say anything about those who did nothing.


“SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.”
So, yes. And this is backed up by multiple other studies, but I’m not linkspamming.


Maybe if guns actually worked to protect people from them, you’d have an argument.

I much prefer injury over being fucking lynched. What, do you think I’d be just fine if all I had were my bare hands? What are your stats on that reducing my odds of injury?

“Victims were injured in 17.3% of the incidents and younger victims were more likely to be injured than older victims (Table 3a). Victims took some type of protective action 43.4% of the time. Victims were injured in 25.5% of the incidents in which they took protective action and in 11.0% of the incidents in which they did not take action (Table 3b). In the incidents in which victims took self-protective action, in 4.2% they were injured (concurrently or) AFTER they took action. Of the 127 incidents in which victims used a gun in self-defense, they were injured AFTER they used a gun in 4.1% of the incidents. Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not. In multivari- ate analyses (Table 3c), attacking or threatening the perpetrator with a gun had no significant effect on the likelihood of the victim being injured after taking self-protective action.
Victims were significantly less likely to be injured BEFORE they took self-protective action when their self-protective action involved using a gun (6.8% of these 127 incidents) than in incidents in which they took other protective actions (21.3%) (Table 3b). In terms of the likelihood of receiving an injury AT ANY TIME during the incident, using a gun in self-defense was associated with a lower likelihood of injury compared to other self-protective actions, but the likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likeli- hood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%). In the multivariate analysis, compared to all other contact crime incidents, those where a gun was used in self-defense was not associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of being injured during the crime (Table 3c).”

[Gormwood]

Stochastic terrorism requires someone to act out on them. They're not Harry Potter spells that can drop people dead. Way to be disingenuous.

So the Proud Boys aren't really a threat then?

Good to know.

Today I learned the Proud Boys never threw punches.

[Kowani]

You misunderstanding nihilism is your fault.

Yes...but not compared to other things. “In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.”
Note that it doesn’t say anything about those who did nothing.


“SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.”
So, yes. And this is backed up by multiple other studies, but I’m not linkspamming.


Maybe if guns actually worked to protect people from them, you’d have an argument.

What do guns do then? If they're worthless as a force multiplier, then why do they exist? Why do cops carry one or more? Why do states spend gorillion of dollars outfitting an army with them? And importantly, why ban them, if they're not effective weapons?

They’re ineffective as tools of self defense. Which is distinctly different from being force multipliers. And as for banning them, well, they’re directly related to an increase in crime.

(Beyond that, militarily situations are very different contexts)

[Telconi]

Wait, you own a pistol, and safely care for it? How wicked of you.

Even worse. I’m a poor twenty year old trying to save up enough money to buy a pistol, for self defense purposes. Don’t be surprised if you see me on the news with the headline “School Shooter Murders Ten Thousand”

Got a PP chapter nearby? They're good folks.

[The Two Jerseys]

So the Proud Boys aren't really a threat then?

Good to know.

Today I learned the Proud Boys never threw punches.

But they can't magically kill Jews or whatever it is you claim they support.

Clearly there's no need to even oppose them.

[Ors Might]

I much prefer injury over being fucking lynched. What, do you think I’d be just fine if all I had were my bare hands? What are your stats on that reducing my odds of injury?

“Victims were injured in 17.3% of the incidents and younger victims were more likely to be injured than older victims (Table 3a). Victims took some type of protective action 43.4% of the time. Victims were injured in 25.5% of the incidents in which they took protective action and in 11.0% of the incidents in which they did not take action (Table 3b). In the incidents in which victims took self-protective action, in 4.2% they were injured (concurrently or) AFTER they took action. Of the 127 incidents in which victims used a gun in self-defense, they were injured AFTER they used a gun in 4.1% of the incidents. Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not. In multivari- ate analyses (Table 3c), attacking or threatening the perpetrator with a gun had no significant effect on the likelihood of the victim being injured after taking self-protective action.
Victims were significantly less likely to be injured BEFORE they took self-protective action when their self-protective action involved using a gun (6.8% of these 127 incidents) than in incidents in which they took other protective actions (21.3%) (Table 3b). In terms of the likelihood of receiving an injury AT ANY TIME during the incident, using a gun in self-defense was associated with a lower likelihood of injury compared to other self-protective actions, but the likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likeli- hood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%). In the multivariate analysis, compared to all other contact crime incidents, those where a gun was used in self-defense was not associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of being injured during the crime (Table 3c).”

You can understand my skepticism of a study that implies that using my fists against an attack armed with knives will work out better for me than if I used a firearm against attackers armed with nothing but their fists. Though one should certainly try to avoid engaging with their attackers if possible, that’s not something you can always do.

[Ors Might]

Even worse. I’m a poor twenty year old trying to save up enough money to buy a pistol, for self defense purposes. Don’t be surprised if you see me on the news with the headline “School Shooter Murders Ten Thousand”

Got a PP chapter nearby? They're good folks.

Not that I’m aware of. LR is a lot more opened minded than where I’m from but I don’t know if it’s ready for a bunch of armed gays. Besides, unless its within walking distance, I’m not going to be able to get contacted with them.

[Kowani]

“Victims were injured in 17.3% of the incidents and younger victims were more likely to be injured than older victims (Table 3a). Victims took some type of protective action 43.4% of the time. Victims were injured in 25.5% of the incidents in which they took protective action and in 11.0% of the incidents in which they did not take action (Table 3b). In the incidents in which victims took self-protective action, in 4.2% they were injured (concurrently or) AFTER they took action. Of the 127 incidents in which victims used a gun in self-defense, they were injured AFTER they used a gun in 4.1% of the incidents. Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not. In multivari- ate analyses (Table 3c), attacking or threatening the perpetrator with a gun had no significant effect on the likelihood of the victim being injured after taking self-protective action.
Victims were significantly less likely to be injured BEFORE they took self-protective action when their self-protective action involved using a gun (6.8% of these 127 incidents) than in incidents in which they took other protective actions (21.3%) (Table 3b). In terms of the likelihood of receiving an injury AT ANY TIME during the incident, using a gun in self-defense was associated with a lower likelihood of injury compared to other self-protective actions, but the likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likeli- hood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%). In the multivariate analysis, compared to all other contact crime incidents, those where a gun was used in self-defense was not associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of being injured during the crime (Table 3c).”

You can understand my skepticism of a study that implies that using my fists against an attack armed with knives will work out better for me than if I used a firearm against attackers armed with nothing but their fists. Though one should certainly try to avoid engaging with their attackers if possible, that’s not something you can always do.

Yes, data can be hard to believe when it contrasts with common sense.
The reasoning is simple though-there’s no guarantee that you’ll be physically attacked during a home invasion, unless you try to defend yourself, and doing so with a weapon increases their aggression, and you are not infallible.

[Kowani]

Yes, data can be hard to believe when it contrasts with common sense.
The reasoning is simple though-there’s no guarantee that you’ll be physically attacked during a home invasion, unless you try to defend yourself, and doing so with a weapon increases their aggression, and you are not infallible.

lol okay.

here's a thought experiment. your home is being burglarized and you're backed into a corner. he (or she because this is the current year) has a knife. in such a scenario which would you prefer to be defending yourself with: a gun or your bare fists?

If my home is being burglarized, I would prefer to stay out of their way.

[Telconi]

lol okay.

here's a thought experiment. your home is being burglarized and you're backed into a corner. he (or she because this is the current year) has a knife. in such a scenario which would you prefer to be defending yourself with: a gun or your bare fists?

If my home is being burglarized, I would prefer to stay out of their way.

And nobody says you can't.

[Galloism]

We do take exhorting people to commit specific violent acts differently, but then again, we did the same back to the founding of the republic, so that's not really a new thing.


It's not really a "gotcha" thing at all. It's a strong comparison point and why rights should transcend time and technology.

It's just that free speech is more dangerous than the right to be arms, by a wide margin in fact, and yet we never talk about just banning certain people from speaking - even people in prison for rallying people to and committing terrorism.

Why is that?

So how often are people killed literally with just spoken words? So far magic has not proven to be real.

With or because of? What's more relevant?

[Loben The 2nd]

lol okay.

here's a thought experiment. your home is being burglarized and you're backed into a corner. he (or she because this is the current year) has a knife. in such a scenario which would you prefer to be defending yourself with: a gun or your bare fists?

If my home is being burglarized, I would prefer to stay out of their way.

wow. wow

[Ors Might]

You can understand my skepticism of a study that implies that using my fists against an attack armed with knives will work out better for me than if I used a firearm against attackers armed with nothing but their fists. Though one should certainly try to avoid engaging with their attackers if possible, that’s not something you can always do.

Yes, data can be hard to believe when it contrasts with common sense.
The reasoning is simple though-there’s no guarantee that you’ll be physically attacked during a home invasion, unless you try to defend yourself, and doing so with a weapon increases their aggression, and you are not infallible.

That’s all true. One should try to avoid violence whenever possible. Unnecessary heroism is no bueno. However, that’s not the sort of situation I’m referring to. For context, I have to walk home late every night from work. It’s about a fifteen minute walk and my area has a lot of homeless people along with other individuals walking about. Though I can certainly try, I doubt my ability to run away if the need arises. I am not in the best of shape.

Getting away from my attackers will not always be an option I can utilize and my canister of mace has very limited effectiveness. What do you suggest I do if one or more violent homophobes decide that they want to cause me harm and I’m unable to run away?

[Holy Tedalonia]

I much prefer injury over being fucking lynched. What, do you think I’d be just fine if all I had were my bare hands? What are your stats on that reducing my odds of injury?

“Victims were injured in 17.3% of the incidents and younger victims were more likely to be injured than older victims (Table 3a). Victims took some type of protective action 43.4% of the time. Victims were injured in 25.5% of the incidents in which they took protective action and in 11.0% of the incidents in which they did not take action (Table 3b). In the incidents in which victims took self-protective action, in 4.2% they were injured (concurrently or) AFTER they took action. Of the 127 incidents in which victims used a gun in self-defense, they were injured AFTER they used a gun in 4.1% of the incidents. Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not. In multivari- ate analyses (Table 3c), attacking or threatening the perpetrator with a gun had no significant effect on the likelihood of the victim being injured after taking self-protective action.
Victims were significantly less likely to be injured BEFORE they took self-protective action when their self-protective action involved using a gun (6.8% of these 127 incidents) than in incidents in which they took other protective actions (21.3%) (Table 3b). In terms of the likelihood of receiving an injury AT ANY TIME during the incident, using a gun in self-defense was associated with a lower likelihood of injury compared to other self-protective actions, but the likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likeli- hood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%). In the multivariate analysis, compared to all other contact crime incidents, those where a gun was used in self-defense was not associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of being injured during the crime (Table 3c).”

Wheres the source? How do I know your not bullshitting?

[Telconi]

Yes, data can be hard to believe when it contrasts with common sense.
The reasoning is simple though-there’s no guarantee that you’ll be physically attacked during a home invasion, unless you try to defend yourself, and doing so with a weapon increases their aggression, and you are not infallible.

That’s all true. One should try to avoid violence whenever possible. Unnecessary heroism is no bueno. However, that’s not the sort of situation I’m referring to. For context, I have to walk home late every night from work. It’s about a fifteen minute walk and my area has a lot of homeless people along with other individuals walking about. Though I can certainly try, I doubt my ability to run away if the need arises. I am not in the best of shape.

Getting away from my attackers will not always be an option I can utilize and my canister of mace has very limited effectiveness. What do you suggest I do if one or more violent homophobes decide that they want to cause me harm and I’m unable to run away?

Pretty sure the answer is "get harmed"

[Kowani]

If my home is being burglarized, I would prefer to stay out of their way.

And nobody says you can't.

Your point?

[Proctopeo]

That’s all true. One should try to avoid violence whenever possible. Unnecessary heroism is no bueno. However, that’s not the sort of situation I’m referring to. For context, I have to walk home late every night from work. It’s about a fifteen minute walk and my area has a lot of homeless people along with other individuals walking about. Though I can certainly try, I doubt my ability to run away if the need arises. I am not in the best of shape.

Getting away from my attackers will not always be an option I can utilize and my canister of mace has very limited effectiveness. What do you suggest I do if one or more violent homophobes decide that they want to cause me harm and I’m unable to run away?

Pretty sure the answer is "get harmed"

Don't worry; Kowani would be more happy that you weren't armed than you are sad that you got harmed. The total happiness in the world would have increased.

[Kowani]

“Victims were injured in 17.3% of the incidents and younger victims were more likely to be injured than older victims (Table 3a). Victims took some type of protective action 43.4% of the time. Victims were injured in 25.5% of the incidents in which they took protective action and in 11.0% of the incidents in which they did not take action (Table 3b). In the incidents in which victims took self-protective action, in 4.2% they were injured (concurrently or) AFTER they took action. Of the 127 incidents in which victims used a gun in self-defense, they were injured AFTER they used a gun in 4.1% of the incidents. Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not. In multivari- ate analyses (Table 3c), attacking or threatening the perpetrator with a gun had no significant effect on the likelihood of the victim being injured after taking self-protective action.
Victims were significantly less likely to be injured BEFORE they took self-protective action when their self-protective action involved using a gun (6.8% of these 127 incidents) than in incidents in which they took other protective actions (21.3%) (Table 3b). In terms of the likelihood of receiving an injury AT ANY TIME during the incident, using a gun in self-defense was associated with a lower likelihood of injury compared to other self-protective actions, but the likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likeli- hood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%). In the multivariate analysis, compared to all other contact crime incidents, those where a gun was used in self-defense was not associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of being injured during the crime (Table 3c).”

Wheres the source? How do I know your not bullshitting?

I posted this earlier. Here.

[Gormwood]

So how often are people killed literally with just spoken words? So far magic has not proven to be real.

With or because of? What's more relevant?

You're the one who claimed words are literally deadlier than firearms.

[Galloism]

With or because of? What's more relevant?

You're the one who claimed words are literally deadlier than firearms.

When it comes to cause of death, they absolutely are.

When it comes to with, very rarely, which is why it's important if you're concerned about the causes of deaths or the means of death. If you're after causes, then speech is more dangerous. If you're after means, then guns are more dangerous, but you also won't prevent many if any deaths because you failed to address the causes.