Britain Is Bleeding

I want to be free of the fear of being shot. Where for you is the confusion in this ?

 

That you would think you can be "free" of something like that. That's like saying you want to be "free" from want, or "free" from risk. Such "freedom" doesn't exist. It doesn't matter where you live in the world, there is always risk. There is always danger. There is no such thing as "safety". You want to be free from self-responsibility and free from standing up for yourself. If that's what you want, you're welcome to pursue it; just don't expect me to have any interest in such an existence as you "want".

 

No one gets off the planet alive.

 

So you to paraphrase your response you like the idea of being shot because it validates your lethal obsessions via firearms

 

The only danger I see is from US legal gun obsessives or wasn't the Vegas shooter a bona fide example of that ?

 

Particularly if they live in the US right ?

 

Beyond the simple, basic matter of how rejecting such a notion goes against the interest of those who are actually funding the studies for the purpose of furthering their political ideology?

Beyond the claim being made by yourself about how the mere presence of firearms has the ability to somehow facilitate acts of violence, as if they can actually directly influence others to engage in acts they simply would not engage in should such not be available?

 

The only ones who are free from anything are those that are already dead.

 

Then stop being afraid.

 

then don't hang out with druggies if you don't want to be shot by criminals and if you worry about being shot by honest people, then don't engage in illegal behavior such s home invasions or robbery. you'll be pretty safe in the USA if you do what I say. I know that for a fact. However, you don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others because you have an irrational fear of firearms or gun owners

 

the only thing he has to fear, is fear itself!

 

those who live in cowardly nanny states don't die?

 

Do you have a relevant comment to make or not, because what you posted above is meaningless.

 

So having a gun makes you a hero then ? I suppose having lots of them like you do just underlines that heroism. I bet the Vegas shooter felt just like that

 

Tell that to the good people of Las Vegas

 

The majority of homicides in the united states stem from single party incidents, where there is only one perpetrator, and one victim. Mass killings are a different topic entirely. Otherwise the mass killing in the city of Nice, in the nation of France, is quite relevant to the discussion, and as a result will indeed be discussed. Excluding september eleventh, compared to the united states, the nation of France has experienced the deadliest mass killing in decades.

 

Having a firearm is not about being regarded as a hero. Rather it is about having the ability to choose to not be a victim who is ultimately left at the mercy of the one who is victimizing them.

 

Surely were different times back then, weren’t they? I remember taking a Prague - JFK flight on A300 in 1990 and the cockpit door staying wide open during taxing and takeoff... captain came out to the business class 1 hour into the flight, befriended me and let me sit in the left seat for some 40 minutes, all the way to England and then again in the jump seat, landing in to JFK...

Was quite an experience for a non-pilot... these were the days...

 

Not even the Brits, but they die as subjects.

 

Best forget, mind you, that the probability of being a victim increases with gun ownership...

 

And you know this just how?

 

Empirical evidence is available to us all dear chap. Here's one chosen randomly: Branas et al. (2009, Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2034–2040). Here's the summary:

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.

 

That empirical evidence thing again. What you're talking about is the difference between no chance and a chance. BTW why do you think drug corner sellers are armed?

 

And that's the problem. You're simply not interested in evidence.

 

See, your dedication to being controlled is so deeply held that you are incapable of seeing the point.

I am alive today because I had a gun and knew how to use it. Guns are lawfully used to protect people from criminals who have sought to stab them, beat them, rape them, and commit all kind of violence against them; most often without the criminals being armed with guns themselves. More crime is stopped by armed citizens by far than there are crimes committed by armed societal predators. That is just the plain and inarguable truth. You don't have to like it, or accept it, or acknowledge it; but that doesn't make it any less true.

Your position seems to be summed up as: you don't mind being murdered so long as you aren't shot... because of your refusal to take any responsibility for yourself or your inability to defend yourself or the people who depend on you.