Two factors explain this discrepancy – one, misclassified shootings; and two, overlooked incidents. Regarding the former, the CPRC determined that the FBI reports had misclassified five shootings: In two incidents, the Bureau notes in its detailed write-up that citizens possessing valid firearms permits confronted the shooters and caused them to flee the scene. However, the FBI did not list these cases as being stopped by armed citizens because police later apprehended the attackers. In two other incidents, the FBI misidentified armed civilians as armed security personnel. Finally, the FBI failed to mention citizen engagement in one incident.

Never let your government disarm you. They dont have your interests at heart.

  • 👁️🫦👁️@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m reliant on the state for defence on a larger scale, but in our personal lives, the state can do little to defend us from other individuals in a timely manner. That is why I believe everyone that is able to should be responsible for their own personal defence.

    I’ve no desire to injerect in others lives, but I do have a desire to protect myself and my family where the state cannot or will not.

    • MC_Lovecraft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay, but following that logic, getting rid of all of the guns is still the best thing we could do, because it makes it much harder for people to quickly inflict a huge amount of harm. Ensuring that your local community is free of guns would do far more to protect you and your family than bringing a gun into your home, which you have already acknowledged is a highly dangerous thing to do. It’s like arguing that because your neighbor keeps a bear chained up in his yard, you ought to go out and get a bear, to protect yourself from his bear, when the clear answer is just to get the bears out of the neighborhood.

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ensuring that your local community is free of guns

        Nice in theory, impossible in practice.

        We spend $30+billion/year ensuring our communities are free of drugs. How’s that working out? From where I sit we may as well just put the cash in a giant pile and set it on fire, at least that way it would keep somebody warm.

        Guns are easier to make than drugs. Any half-decent machine shop can make a gun, and unlike a drug lab, the machine shop has a lot of legitimate ‘day shift’ uses. Hobbyists make their own (legal) guns all the time in their basements. And the advent of cheap CNC machining tools makes it even easier.

        Don’t get me wrong- I’m all ears for any proposal that disarms criminals. I don’t believe that disarming the law-abiding will help disarm criminals, at least I don’t see anywhere in our nation’s history where that has worked.

        • MC_Lovecraft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Australia successfully disarmed their populace. This argument does not hold water in the world we actually live in.

          • 👁️🫦👁️@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Australians now own more guns collectively than they did prior to Port Arthur just FYI, and their buyback only got about 1.2 million of the estimated 3.2 million guns in circulation at the time.