113

From military weapon to cultural symbol: how the AR-15 has defined the US gun debate (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

106 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

What are you trying to point out with your link? All I'm seeing is more guns = more homicide, but it seems like your point was that guns are not effective self defense tools and I'm not seeing the connection.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Is that clear enough for you? Possessing a gun for self defense increases the chances that you or your loved ones will be hurt in the act of defending yourself. The mere presence of a gun creates an escalation of violence during confrontations, regardless of whether or not the justification is "self defense."

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

That's an interesting study. I didn't reply to the earlier post as I wanted to get a chance to review and think on it more. Appreciate the added clarity here.

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

It's clear that you'll move the goal posts and pull out something new when someone points out your flawed argument. Stop trying to do your side favors and the debate might have a snowball's chance.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry. Does offering clear, reliable sources to prove my point offend you? That sounds positively horrible for you. How about a hug?

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

clear, reliable sources to prove my point

Did you forget the part where you supplied a link to sources that didn't relate to the point you were making?

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

The part where I pointed out that the guns don't make people safer? Two links (I can find more!) in support of that conclusion? I'm confused as to your motives in accusing me of being dishonest unless your goal is to try to pretend that I haven't actually proven the point that I've been making all along.

Either way, I can see that further discussion is pointless. Feel free to have the last word.

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023

113 points (92.5% liked)

politics

19145 readers

2288 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News