I think we’re talking two different things. I’m not saying to buy a giant handgun and wait for robbers to come into your house so you can blast them away.
I’ve known people who fantasize about that. They are gross.
What I’m saying is that the police in the United States have a history of shooting dogs, so they do absolutely nothing for you anti-fascist security. They would absolutely help against theft and robbery because most robbers want to be quick and quiet. Police don’t care.
But so a gun doesn’t help either. It just means they call SWAT and take you down with superior numbers and firepower, doesn’t it?
The only real place where a gun helps is in an actual civil war, or possibly against a single non-governmental bad guy (with risk of being shot yourself as well).
I have a dog. I’m also surrounded by fascists in the deep south. I’m keeping guns because I’d rather live than die for some abstract moral point you’re trying to make about how we should live in a fantasy land where people in fascists states don’t need guns.
By that logic, a gun won’t either. Many gun owners are shot by police. If you shoot back at an unlawful entrance, they just bring more. They don’t really care. Power disparity is too great already.
The fight was lost in the Supreme Court. 42 USC §1988 was explicitly set up to grant civil rights attorneys fees if they won their claim (and it costs a lot to prosecute a civil rights claim). But lawyers and firms would accept winnable civil rights cases on the basis that they would eventually get paid. That came to a halt in 2001 in 532 US 598, decided on May 2001, which talked about the rights of the “prevailing party” to be paid. In function, it killed civil rights litigation.
The police shooting people because they have or might have guns is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment right to carry. (ACLU never got involved because they don’t take 2nd amendment cases).
“Winning” requires multiple fronts, from civil resistance and disobedience, to openly carrying protests, to voting, to boycotts, to lawsuits, to just simply speaking out when something isn’t right. And proposing alternative solutions.
I don’t see how the weapons will be useful honestly. Iran has a very well armed military and they’re almost totally powerless before the US military. Military conflict is perhaps the singular thing fascists are best at. I’d rather attack my enemies where they are weak instead of where they are strong.
I mean I’m not opposed to people being armed but it really should be viewed as a last resort to hurt your enemies as much as possible before you’re totally wiped out rather than a realistic path to political change.
I know that the second a gun is brought into a house the members of the household are significantly more likely to be shot. I believe it’s because of the number of gun related suicides as well as the risk of a negligent discharge.
This is true, but in a vacuum in a life-threatening situation a gun is better than a dog for defending yourself. And also does not require you to intentionally put an innocent creature in harm’s way. And also does not require nearly as much upkeep as a dog.
But you are correct, the presence of a gun does statically increase your risk of being shot. And that is something worth considering.
Edit: and furthermore if you buy a guard dog, your risk of being mauled by a dog will likewise go up.
A claw hammer would be a better option than a gun. Why does everyone assume that a gun would be the best thing to defend yourself with in all situations.
I can grab it at a moments notice as it can safely be left out, you don’t have to load it or aim it so using it is fast and simple. If its my home they’re invading I know where to hide. I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure. Its just going to be easier and more reliable to hit someones head with a hammer than it will be to shoot them.
Unlike you, I actually train with my gun so we have very different concerns when under pressure. Mine relate more to not getting killed to make some kind of moral stand about how guns are bad in all contexts.
Brother I aint said shit about how I feel about gun ownership, you read into that. I’m just pointing out that I really do think a claw hammer is just an overall more utilitarian self defense weapon.
Honestly, I wouldn’t leave hammers lying around where kids could get to them any more than guns. The hammer will be less deadly, sure, but a dumb kid will still cause a lot of damage with it.
you don’t have to load it
True
or aim it
False, lol. You out there protecting yourself with unaimed hammer swings?
I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure.
The only advantage I agree with is the ability to leave a hammer out versus a gun, and that’s only in cases of having small children at home. If your gun is for self-defense, it would make more sense to keep it loaded and easily accessible.
I have to say it’s a very strange stance to prefer to defend yourself within arm’s reach of an assailant versus at a distance. I think you’re also giving yourself a lot of credit when you say you’d be more confident swinging a hammer with enough accuracy and strength to incapacitate someone while panicking. Better hope you get them in one swing.
Maybe its just because I’ve been in a lot of dog fights, but if someone close to you swings something heavy, i think most people would drop the gun to try stopping it. However it is sooo situational.
Yeah you’re right, instead I should trust that the police will use restraint, arrive instantly, and do the right thing 🤡
You white and rich? Then yeah. You black and poor? Then FUCK no.
A dog is much better protection than a gun.
Dogs get shot.
Life isn’t a video game.
Ask a real world security professional and they’ll tell you to get a dog.
A gun salesman will tell you that if you buy a gun you automatically become Annie Oakley
I think we’re talking two different things. I’m not saying to buy a giant handgun and wait for robbers to come into your house so you can blast them away.
I’ve known people who fantasize about that. They are gross.
What I’m saying is that the police in the United States have a history of shooting dogs, so they do absolutely nothing for you anti-fascist security. They would absolutely help against theft and robbery because most robbers want to be quick and quiet. Police don’t care.
But so a gun doesn’t help either. It just means they call SWAT and take you down with superior numbers and firepower, doesn’t it?
The only real place where a gun helps is in an actual civil war, or possibly against a single non-governmental bad guy (with risk of being shot yourself as well).
I have a dog. I’m also surrounded by fascists in the deep south. I’m keeping guns because I’d rather live than die for some abstract moral point you’re trying to make about how we should live in a fantasy land where people in fascists states don’t need guns.
deleted by creator
No they will fucking not.
I am a (former) real world security professional.
And I’ll say that a gun is much easier to carry around with you than a dog.
I taught my gun to walk, now I don’t have to carry it anymore :D
Good boy!
deleted by creator
Look up MOVE.
Philadelphia police bombed a house in the middle of the city.
If it comes to an armed conflict, I really doubt that the folks who couldn’t get Bernie nominated are going to win a firefight.
Stop living in videogame land.
deleted by creator
Nothing your wrote makes me think you could handle an actual gunfight.
deleted by creator
So what’s your plan? Just give in?
We don’t know that. It might be, and unfortunately I think who ever is playing has gotten bored.
deleted by creator
By that logic, a gun won’t either. Many gun owners are shot by police. If you shoot back at an unlawful entrance, they just bring more. They don’t really care. Power disparity is too great already.
This fight is won elsewhere.
deleted by creator
The fight was lost in the Supreme Court. 42 USC §1988 was explicitly set up to grant civil rights attorneys fees if they won their claim (and it costs a lot to prosecute a civil rights claim). But lawyers and firms would accept winnable civil rights cases on the basis that they would eventually get paid. That came to a halt in 2001 in 532 US 598, decided on May 2001, which talked about the rights of the “prevailing party” to be paid. In function, it killed civil rights litigation.
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1848
The police shooting people because they have or might have guns is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment right to carry. (ACLU never got involved because they don’t take 2nd amendment cases).
But here’s the thing. Cops don’t arrest right wing armed protesters. Why do you think that is? Cops are willing to shoot unarmed protesters in wheelchairs, but fail to move on a fat out of shape protestor with an AR-15. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/protests-houston-police-shoot-unarmed-man-wheelchair
“Winning” requires multiple fronts, from civil resistance and disobedience, to openly carrying protests, to voting, to boycotts, to lawsuits, to just simply speaking out when something isn’t right. And proposing alternative solutions.
Oh I know exactly why that is.
Against random criminals, not occupying forces with an itchy trigger finger.
Good thing Alex Pretti was armed. Oh wait.
If only he had a dog with him…
Yeah the dog thing is silly too.
An organized and effective political movement is what will protect us, not weapons.
An organized and effective political movement with weapons.
I don’t see how the weapons will be useful honestly. Iran has a very well armed military and they’re almost totally powerless before the US military. Military conflict is perhaps the singular thing fascists are best at. I’d rather attack my enemies where they are weak instead of where they are strong.
I mean I’m not opposed to people being armed but it really should be viewed as a last resort to hurt your enemies as much as possible before you’re totally wiped out rather than a realistic path to political change.
We will see, we will see.
Tell it to Afghanistan.
Cops love to shoot dogs.
Even chihuahua?
They’re smaller and harder to hit.
Smaller hitbox. Fair argument.
They distract the invaders while I load my crossbow.
Elaborate.
I know that the second a gun is brought into a house the members of the household are significantly more likely to be shot. I believe it’s because of the number of gun related suicides as well as the risk of a negligent discharge.
This is true, but in a vacuum in a life-threatening situation a gun is better than a dog for defending yourself. And also does not require you to intentionally put an innocent creature in harm’s way. And also does not require nearly as much upkeep as a dog.
But you are correct, the presence of a gun does statically increase your risk of being shot. And that is something worth considering.
Edit: and furthermore if you buy a guard dog, your risk of being mauled by a dog will likewise go up.
¿Por que no los dos?
A claw hammer would be a better option than a gun. Why does everyone assume that a gun would be the best thing to defend yourself with in all situations.
Ok you bring a claw hammer and I’ll bring a rifle we’ll test your theory out
Think to yourself for two seconds why a gun would be better for self-defense than a hammer.
“Oh no, now everything looks like a nail! Guess it’s Hammer Time.”
deleted by creator
Are we shooting eachother across a field or are you invading my house?
What advantage does a hammer have over a gun in a moment of self-defense?
I can grab it at a moments notice as it can safely be left out, you don’t have to load it or aim it so using it is fast and simple. If its my home they’re invading I know where to hide. I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure. Its just going to be easier and more reliable to hit someones head with a hammer than it will be to shoot them.
Unlike you, I actually train with my gun so we have very different concerns when under pressure. Mine relate more to not getting killed to make some kind of moral stand about how guns are bad in all contexts.
Brother I aint said shit about how I feel about gun ownership, you read into that. I’m just pointing out that I really do think a claw hammer is just an overall more utilitarian self defense weapon.
Honestly, I wouldn’t leave hammers lying around where kids could get to them any more than guns. The hammer will be less deadly, sure, but a dumb kid will still cause a lot of damage with it.
True
False, lol. You out there protecting yourself with unaimed hammer swings?
Skill issue. Requires training time.
The only advantage I agree with is the ability to leave a hammer out versus a gun, and that’s only in cases of having small children at home. If your gun is for self-defense, it would make more sense to keep it loaded and easily accessible.
I have to say it’s a very strange stance to prefer to defend yourself within arm’s reach of an assailant versus at a distance. I think you’re also giving yourself a lot of credit when you say you’d be more confident swinging a hammer with enough accuracy and strength to incapacitate someone while panicking. Better hope you get them in one swing.
Maybe its just because I’ve been in a lot of dog fights, but if someone close to you swings something heavy, i think most people would drop the gun to try stopping it. However it is sooo situational.
Unless you’re fighting nails, a claw hammer is not not the best thing to defend yourself with in any situation.