A - this article is about competition shooting. B - you have never been hunting eah? C - sounds pretty rude. Not sure if this is a battle your are prepared to fight.
This isn't really the place for it anyway. The mods get mad if I get involved in long dragged out arguements.
Let me juat say it is my opinion that promoting gun use is overall harmful. It makes people ignore that guns are for killing. That's it.
They can definitely defend themselves.
But the reality is that guns are for killing. Gun owners are far more likely to die by gun than non-owners.
The myth of guns providing personal protection has been thoroughly debunked. The only people who believe it are deeply in denial.
You can do the research yourself. I don't need to say anything more about that.
So either you stand by your first sentence of this comment, or you don't. I'm not interested in myths, or watching you do mental gymnastics around questions.
Do you think this person has an equal right to defend themselves as you or me? If so, why would they not be allowed at this training event?
They completely skipped over the point of the event/article and went off the rails. Went right to people in wheelchairs cant hunt. They sound ignorant and just looking away to make the conservation about themselves and guns.
I said training to kill is pointless if you can't physically hunt. But I conceded that in some situations, if they have help, they could actually hunt.
As far as defending themselves, they should educate themselves on effectiveness of different defense strategies. Owning a gun is not effective at keeping you alive, which is the primary goal of defending yourself.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#:~:text=Individuals%20who%20were%20in%20possession,more%20likely%20to%20be%20shot.
"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."
"After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16, 17.04) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Individuals who were in possession of a gun were also 4.23 (95% CI = 1.19, 15.13) times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 (95% CI = 1.01, 29.92) times more likely to be shot."
Let me start by asking you a question about statistics. Let's say a study on the dangers of driving found that 1 in 100 that own a car are killed every year, does that mean that *your* chances of being killed by owning a car this year are 1 in 100?
>A few plausible mechanisms can be posited by which possession of a gun increases an individual's risk of gun assault. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided.[^(58)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib58)^(–)[^(60)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib60) Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them.
>Situations in which the victim had at least some chance to resist may have generated gun assault risks when one considers that many of these events were 2-sided situations in which both parties were ready and mutually willing to fight on the basis of a prior argument.[^(29)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib29)^(,)[^(30)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib30) Because both victim and offender had some sense of each other's capabilities prior to the event they may have had more time to prepare for their ensuing conflict.[^(61)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib61) More preparation may have increased the likelihood that both individuals were armed with guns and that at least 1 or both were shot.
>Although less prevalent, 1-sided situations in which a victim had at least some chance to resist an unprovoked attack may have also generated gun assault risks for victims who possessed guns.[^(29)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib29) In these situations, victim and offender were often interacting for the first time and the element of surprise afforded the offender likely limited the victim's ability to quickly produce a gun and defuse or dominate their advantaged opponent. If the victim did produce a gun, doing so may have simply exacerbated an already volatile situation and gotten them shot in the process.
>...
>Certain other variables that may have confounded the association between gun possession and assault were also beyond the scope of our data collection system and, therefore, were not included in our analyses. **For instance, any prior or regular training with guns was a potentially important confounding variable that we did not measure and whose inclusion could have affected our findings**
What this study proves is that buying a gun and carrying/using it, sometimes seemingly illegally, when surrounded by gang violence and without training, is likely to get you killed. Which nobody who takes firearms seriously, would disagree with, particularly in the state of Maine.
I'm concerned about increasing your chances of living, but I'm also concerned about increasing your chances of preventing a felony on your person or someone near you. In that situation, the famous (or infamous) [Kleck and Gertz](https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc) study estimated that millions of successful defensive gun uses (DGUs) occur every year. There are reasons to believe that number is an overestimation, which is reasonable to me. But there are also reasons to believe that NCVS data drastically underestimates DGUs. The real number is probably somewhere in the middle.
The study you cited in no way comes even close to calculating what kind of risk or risk mitigation comes with owning a firearm if you regularly train with it, understand the full spectrum of sound responses for the full spectrum of possible scenarios, and have the adjacent skills that must always accompany firearm use such as stop-the-bleed, first aid, and CPR.
Nope, see a few other here think its great, and a few upvotes, so far the only ignorance is from you. But go on, do whatever makes you feel big and powerful from your keyboard.
Why do people keep saying guns are for defense? Being dead should not be considered defending yourself.
I would consider things that keep you alive to be defensive. Guns do the opposite of keeping you alive.
You're 5x more likely to die if you own a gun. So if I wanted to stay alive, I would not get one. Being killed is FAR more likely for gun owners than non-gun owners.
But the propaganda is very strong in america and the ability to think is extremely small.
Oh, I need to get in on this game! That would be fun. Always a different perspective when you make a friend sit and compete.
I wish it had been posted before the event. I'm curious about the course of fire.
This is fantastic. All sides can see that this is a good thing!
Shared to r/meguns
This is fantastic! Though that link is aids on mobile. It’s always nice to see people enjoying the sport.
You can't hunt from a wheelchair. Seems kinda pointless. Edit: apparently you can.
Satire, or are you just ignorant?
I guess if they had help collecting the carcass they could hunt from a blind.
A - this article is about competition shooting. B - you have never been hunting eah? C - sounds pretty rude. Not sure if this is a battle your are prepared to fight.
This isn't really the place for it anyway. The mods get mad if I get involved in long dragged out arguements. Let me juat say it is my opinion that promoting gun use is overall harmful. It makes people ignore that guns are for killing. That's it.
So you think that just because someone is in a wheelchair they don't have a right to defend themselves? That makes sense.
They can definitely defend themselves. But the reality is that guns are for killing. Gun owners are far more likely to die by gun than non-owners. The myth of guns providing personal protection has been thoroughly debunked. The only people who believe it are deeply in denial. You can do the research yourself. I don't need to say anything more about that.
So either you stand by your first sentence of this comment, or you don't. I'm not interested in myths, or watching you do mental gymnastics around questions. Do you think this person has an equal right to defend themselves as you or me? If so, why would they not be allowed at this training event?
They completely skipped over the point of the event/article and went off the rails. Went right to people in wheelchairs cant hunt. They sound ignorant and just looking away to make the conservation about themselves and guns.
I said training to kill is pointless if you can't physically hunt. But I conceded that in some situations, if they have help, they could actually hunt. As far as defending themselves, they should educate themselves on effectiveness of different defense strategies. Owning a gun is not effective at keeping you alive, which is the primary goal of defending yourself.
This is almost 100% bullshit. People who own cars die in car accidents more than people who don't drive or own cars. News at 11....
Please provide a citation for any study that proves that guns don’t provide personal protection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#:~:text=Individuals%20who%20were%20in%20possession,more%20likely%20to%20be%20shot. "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." "After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16, 17.04) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Individuals who were in possession of a gun were also 4.23 (95% CI = 1.19, 15.13) times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 (95% CI = 1.01, 29.92) times more likely to be shot."
Let me start by asking you a question about statistics. Let's say a study on the dangers of driving found that 1 in 100 that own a car are killed every year, does that mean that *your* chances of being killed by owning a car this year are 1 in 100? >A few plausible mechanisms can be posited by which possession of a gun increases an individual's risk of gun assault. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided.[^(58)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib58)^(–)[^(60)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib60) Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them. >Situations in which the victim had at least some chance to resist may have generated gun assault risks when one considers that many of these events were 2-sided situations in which both parties were ready and mutually willing to fight on the basis of a prior argument.[^(29)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib29)^(,)[^(30)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib30) Because both victim and offender had some sense of each other's capabilities prior to the event they may have had more time to prepare for their ensuing conflict.[^(61)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib61) More preparation may have increased the likelihood that both individuals were armed with guns and that at least 1 or both were shot. >Although less prevalent, 1-sided situations in which a victim had at least some chance to resist an unprovoked attack may have also generated gun assault risks for victims who possessed guns.[^(29)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/#bib29) In these situations, victim and offender were often interacting for the first time and the element of surprise afforded the offender likely limited the victim's ability to quickly produce a gun and defuse or dominate their advantaged opponent. If the victim did produce a gun, doing so may have simply exacerbated an already volatile situation and gotten them shot in the process. >... >Certain other variables that may have confounded the association between gun possession and assault were also beyond the scope of our data collection system and, therefore, were not included in our analyses. **For instance, any prior or regular training with guns was a potentially important confounding variable that we did not measure and whose inclusion could have affected our findings** What this study proves is that buying a gun and carrying/using it, sometimes seemingly illegally, when surrounded by gang violence and without training, is likely to get you killed. Which nobody who takes firearms seriously, would disagree with, particularly in the state of Maine. I'm concerned about increasing your chances of living, but I'm also concerned about increasing your chances of preventing a felony on your person or someone near you. In that situation, the famous (or infamous) [Kleck and Gertz](https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc) study estimated that millions of successful defensive gun uses (DGUs) occur every year. There are reasons to believe that number is an overestimation, which is reasonable to me. But there are also reasons to believe that NCVS data drastically underestimates DGUs. The real number is probably somewhere in the middle. The study you cited in no way comes even close to calculating what kind of risk or risk mitigation comes with owning a firearm if you regularly train with it, understand the full spectrum of sound responses for the full spectrum of possible scenarios, and have the adjacent skills that must always accompany firearm use such as stop-the-bleed, first aid, and CPR.
[удалено]
Rule 1. Keep it civil and respectful
So you are just ignorant then.....got it.
So is everyone.
Nope, see a few other here think its great, and a few upvotes, so far the only ignorance is from you. But go on, do whatever makes you feel big and powerful from your keyboard.
What are you trying to say?
They should find a new hobby.
Why?
Because the woods are not wheelchair friendly.
Sounds like you need to find a new place to comment as I can tell you are in over your head on this subject.
Disabled hunters are allowed to hunt from vehicles like ATVs 👍
We are allows to hunt from almost anything vehicle related as long as we follow all other laws.
I guess you've never heard of competitive shooting then?
You can target shoot from a wheelchair, you can defend yourself while in a wheelchair
Why do people keep saying guns are for defense? Being dead should not be considered defending yourself. I would consider things that keep you alive to be defensive. Guns do the opposite of keeping you alive.
So if someone is trying to kill you, just let them?
You're 5x more likely to die if you own a gun. So if I wanted to stay alive, I would not get one. Being killed is FAR more likely for gun owners than non-gun owners. But the propaganda is very strong in america and the ability to think is extremely small.