389
submitted 11 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 49 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 6 points 11 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 9 points 11 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@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

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

[-] aksdb@feddit.de 1 points 11 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".

[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Sadly. Gun nuts don't want to hear any of this. The U.S. gun culture is truly obscene.

[-] jasory@programming.dev 0 points 11 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 1 points 11 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 -1 points 11 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 1 points 11 months ago

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

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 6 points 11 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.

this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
389 points (97.1% liked)

News

23259 readers
1528 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS