You're viewing a single thread.
Sounds like my former coworker showing off his new gun on Facebook a few years back, with the post "I can't wait to use this to defend my family."
People like to think that because they own a gun, if they ever got to use it they would be John Wick.
What they don't realize is that Keanu Reeves does a ton of training, and even occasionally does competitions
Also, it's a movie, not real life. John wick would have died hundreds of times in those movies if even some of those events were real.
Man, I would be pretty upset if I dedicated a bunch of my time to compete, and then a guy who got paid millions of dollars to train with some of the best experts in the field showed up as a competitor. That would be like entering an amateur competition and there's a fucking Navy Seal in line next to you.
Psst, (some) Navy SEALs (and ex-thereof) shoot competitions too. So there's the mega rich celebs, the SEALs, and the regular ol' civilian that'll actually win, and 200 other people.
My advice is "show up to have fun, if you win you win."
I think nearly everyone in the firearms community realizes how much time and effort Keanu puts into training.
I think the opposite is more true; meaning that people OUTSIDE the firearms community have little to no idea how much time and effort it takes to be anything like what he looks like in the movies. Nor do they realize how far removed the movies they watch are from reality. Suppressors are not silent, shooting things 50 yards away with a pistol is almost always going to result in a miss, your ears are ringing after just one or two shots making conversations after a gun battle impossible, and so on.
Always loved that archer got the noise right in the show...mawp
That's the sort of person who shouldn't own a firearm. That should actually be added as a question for the background check form.
As someone seriously considering their first firearm purchase, my main thought is "I hope this is a gigantic waste of time and money".
It doesn't have to be! It can be fun to go to the range or competitions, you can "get your money's worth" so to speak that way! You don't have to "use" it to use it, know what I mean.
(Of course, if need be it's there for that too, "god" or whatever metaphor you wish willing, yadda yadda you know.)
I don't really have the space, time and money to make a hobby of it unfortunately.
It doesn’t take any more space than simply owning the gun and safety gear to go shoot for fun.
If you’re going to own a gun you really ought to go out and use it sometimes so you are somewhat competent in handling the firearm.
space, time and money.
Also, I'm not shooting a firearm off in my sub-1-acre suburban neighborhood property.
That’s not what I’m suggesting. The vast majority of gun owners don’t shoot their guns on their property. I live in a condo.
There are indoor and outdoor ranges all over the United States. If you live in a suburb it’s a safe bet that there is a gun range open to the public within a 20 minute drive of your house. Range access is easy and affordable everywhere in the USA. It doesn’t take an immense money or time commitment to go out and shoot every now and then.
If you buy a firearm, but refuse to learn how to use it, it really will be a waste of money because it won’t be useful to you if the time ever did come to need it. Plus you have an obligation to those around you to own a firearm responsibly. Part of responsible firearm ownership is basic competence with the weapon.
Hence why I said it would probably be a huge waste of time and money. What you've said is exactly why I don't have a firearm.
I didn't mean make it your entire world or anything lol, but fair enough, to each his own.
(You should at least practice enough to become proficient should the need arise however, as that is really more of a safety for bystanders sort of thing, and learn how to be safe in general with it and learn the laws in your area.)
Well, good news, a firearm would achieve the exact opposite of protecting you and your loved one from harm.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25910555/
In fact it's the opposite. A firearm is far more likely to be involved in an accidental injury or death of someone in the household than it is going to be used in any form of self defense.
If you want to effectively protect yourself, invest in actual home security measures.
So rest assured that any firearm you purchase for self defense is always going to be a huge waste of money.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I mean, that's what the battleaxe by my bed is for.
You ever try swinging it in your hallway?
No, but I can always choke up on my grip, or swing vertical with it. IDGAF if someone is in the hallway, they can have whatever they want out there.
Well, good luck with that!
Is a funny sentence but doesn't really apply here.
If you want to effectively protect yourself, invest in actual home security measures.
I already have cameras up around my home, and locks on doors and windows (plus CO and Smoke detectors, because that shit probably kills too). I'm more worried about idealogical/theological fanatics in the near future than I am about a potential robber or serial killer.
No ..no it doesn't. These studies are stupid levels of flawed. Not all crimes are reported to the police where nothing happened. Most DGUs no shot is fired, but they don't get counted because they're not reported.
The studies that try and show that a gun in the home is more dangerous use suicide statistics as well, which is like saying you're more likely to drown in a pool if you own one...which the answer is "no shit".
Yes it does, there's many studies across all the USA. It's one of the most studied thing ever.
No it is not. Even the one you linked is from a poll. The CDC pulled the original numbers for DGUs because they're basically impossible to obtain properly and the CDC didn't like that it didn't paint guns in a bad light
Here is the study that was requested by the cdc and by Obama...
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.
This part talks about the study you directly linked, which states that respondents were not ansed specifically about defensive gun use.
On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.
So no, it's not, it's also lacking heavily in studies...and as I said why one of reasons the CDC pulled the numbers.
TL;DR
Ammosexuals will write down novels trying to justify their urge to gun down people.
Way to ignore the data kid.
lol
lmao, even