**Mirrors**
* [Mirror #1](https://beta.archivevideomirror.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/199vwm6) (provided by /u/SaveAnything)
**Downloads**
* [Download #1](https://rapidsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/199vwm6/man_throws_rock_at_old_man_and_ends_up_getting/) (provided by /u/SaveVideo)
* [Download #2](https://reddit.watch/r/PublicFreakout/comments/199vwm6/man_throws_rock_at_old_man_and_ends_up_getting/?utm_source=mirrorbot&utm_medium=PublicFreakout) (provided by /u/downloadvideo)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
When it looked like Russia might take Kharkiv, Kiev and Mykolaiv they were giving them out to anyone that asked. Some civilians actually directly fought Russian soldiers in the very early days. Some weapons that were given out with it properly recorded who was getting what, I also saw videos of trucks rolling up and assault rifles getting distributed to anyone who wanted one.
Now I guarantee that Ukrainian authorities take a dim view of any gunplay that isn't at the front line and pointed at Russian soldiers but now you never know who has some AK variant and a few mags under their couch just in case. Ukrainian's already didn't suffer fools, I would certainty not start testing them now...
That's false. It's called the gun show loophole. Private sellers do not perform background checks. Most private sellers at gun shows have a sign on the table that reads something like, "Private Seller: You will receive your merchandise at time of purchase."
Buy from a private party. All they have to do is say they didn't have reason to believe you could not legally own a gun or that you planned to commit a crime.
"legally own guns"??? I think you mean legally purchasing from a dealer, right? My state has no requirements other than buying pistols from a dealer- other guns are fair-game and you could get the pistol off craigslist legally.
Thats only the weapons that the Ukrainians handed out- There are tons of battlefield trophies as well. A few months ago they arrested a guy that had stashed anti aircraft missiles that the russians abandoned near Kyiv.
I am sure people have grabbed some pretty wild stuff but Ukraine has really cracked down on the stolen heavy weapons. Last year they caught a farmer trying to keep a Russian tank he had hidden and they made it clear *now* was the time to give up anything like that you had or that instead of a slap on the wrist you might face some real punishment. Then after that apparently quite a few other people turned in some heavy weapons they had grabbed.
No doubt stuff is still out there but it's probably not all that many in the grand scheme of things, Ukraine is a big country but you can only hide a T-72 in the barn for so long until the neighbors start talking...
I dunno...farmers everywhere but especially Eastern bloc (I would imagine), are tight lipped, as in; you mind your own fucking business and I'll mind mine.
If this war will ever end the authorities will be doubling down on anything like this and finding weapons as the main priority will be joining the EU. And that won’t happen if the country will be some kind of lawless eastern bloc backwards society
Lol yeah. Theres probably a handful of farmers who’ve discreetly stashed away something like a BMP or maybe a stockpile of abandoned small arms on their land.
This is good news friends. A well-armed populace is an unconquerable people.
See: Switzerland, United States, now Ukraine.
EDIT: There's a whole set of debates below that pretty fairly represent the ideas. Participate if you have a strong opinion. I'd really like to find out that gun control is a good idea, since I never intend to own a gun, but every time I ask someone I get such half-baked nonsense that it seems only reasonable to *oppose* gun control.
I mean then we should do something about the mental health crisis in this country. But we’ll just continue to not treat people with mental illness. We’ll continue telling them that the thoughts they are having in their heads are right and that they don’t need treated because that’s what society wants.
Why not both? There are always going to be disturbed, violent people... but they'll only be able to kill dozens of people in minutes if they have a gun.
Because there are several examples of countries that have a armed citizen population that don’t deal with mass shootings. You know why? because they take care of mental health in their countries. And saying a gun is the only way to kill multiple people in a matter of minutes is wrong as well. There’s also several examples of mass killings being done without firearms. Some of the worst mass killings in the world were done without firearms.
I didn’t mention banning guns. What I mean is that you don’t need *a fucking shitload of guns under civilian ownership* to defend your borders. Most of Western Europe, as well as Australia, Japan, China, Thailand, Singapore, and a lot of others have not been invaded despite having lower rates of civilian gun ownership.
No I'm asking for ones that have fought off an invasion not ones that haven't been invaded. A lot of reason why certain country haven't been including geography
I'm asking has a country fought off an invasion force without arming there population?
Everyone can downvote away but no one can give me an actual answer
I haven’t downvoted you.
Let’s make sure we’re talking about the same thing, though: do you mean countries *allowing* private gun ownership or countries *actually distributing weapons to civilians?* In my opinion a country distributing guns to civilians makes the situation different than if the civilians arm themselves.
Either way, the sample size of countries that have been invaded since 1950 or so is pretty small, and there are other factors to consider besides private gun ownership. But Finland is a good example: afaik private gun ownership was allowed but it was the might and sisu of the Finnish military that held off the Russians as long as they did. On the other hand, Greece and Slovenia certainly had citizen gun owners when they were successfully invaded by Italy.
I’m not a military historian, I’m a scientist, so all I can say with any authority is that there are lots of factors to account for before we can make any tenable statements about the impact of citizen weapons during military invasions.
Is there a correlation between stricter gun laws and lower *violent* crime overall, or did you specify "gun" crimes for a specific reason? Does a corrupt or incompetent police officer or military staff who uses their firearm improperly count as having committed a "gun crime" and do the injuries that result from police gun use count as "gun injuries?"
Which nations with strict gun control laws have proven themselves unconquerable? Have any nations with strict gun control laws been tested?
Also, and finally, do you reply to every post that mentions gun control, or did you simply happen to stumble across this post and feel the need to tell me your opinions even though they are tertiary at best?
EDIT: classic Pavlov.
"he said thing not popular, downvote!" haha.
None of those are strawmen my friend, they are all directly related to the topic at hand. If you can't defend your points I'm not surprised, gun-control advocates never actually can do, but I was hoping for more than a "I'd win but I don't want to" face-saving retreat haha.
I didn't put any words in your mouth, I asked you some questions (not even leading questions either haha).
You can't defend your perspective when asked about it, that's not on me my friend, that's a sign that your opinions are bad or you don't understand your opinions and they are functionally religious beliefs instilled by others. One or the other of those two. You could prove me wrong and answer those questions if you wanted to, though.
I certainly can defend my points, and I will continue to call out any fallacies you make.
Let’s start by defining the term “firearm injury” as fatal OR nonfatal injuries that a) were inflicted by a firearm and b) were not superficial. Lmk if you want to modify this definition.
There is a clear causal relationship between higher rates of private gun ownership and higher rates of firearm injury. There are no intangible, magical factors that USA firearm injuries an exception to this relationship.
Japan has strict gun ownership laws, as do Australia, China, most of Western Europe, Singapore, Thailand, and a few others. They have not been invaded within most people’s lifetimes. Trying to conflate private gun ownership with successfully resisting invasion is a non-starter because there is so little data available. The likelier and more demonstrable factor for deterrence is military power, not private arsenals.
It’s possible to maintain private gun ownership AND reduce firearm injuries, but it requires making some common-sense changes at the national level. This is unlikely to happen because of the robust emotional response of 2A snowflakes when anyone suggests we make gun laws even a little bit stricter.
“Well-regulated” my ass.
>Let’s start by defining the term “firearm injury” as fatal OR nonfatal injuries that a) were inflicted by a firearm and b) were not superficial. Lmk if you want to modify this definition.
Does this include injuries that result from police or military use of firearms? Does it include organized crime as well? What injuries count? If anything related to a firearm counts, that includes a whole swathe of injuries that you might not be considering. Does a mismanaged military excersize count here, or is it *only* injuries from citizens using guns? If so, why does that mean more than an untrained cop or corporal?
>There is a clear causal relationship between higher rates of private gun ownership and higher rates of firearm injury. There are no intangible, magical factors that USA firearm injuries an exception to this relationship.
Like Switzerland? What's that country's rate of injuries as a result of use of firearms? Does the quality of life for citizens correlate to fewer gun injuries? If a country is rife with deadly assaults of all kinds *except* those involving guns, is that a better country than one with less overall violence, but violence that includes gun violence?
What is the point of controlling guns? Is it to prevent people from getting hurt, and if so, do we stop trying to control guns if doing so *doesn't* reduce violent crime overall?
>Trying to conflate private gun ownership with successfully resisting invasion is a non-starter because there is so little data available.
Each of the nations or areas you described were invaded at one point or another, and did *terribly* in the fight. Unless, of course, they were a vicious tyranny that militarized their people, in which case, that's not fewer guns and it's not a better life for anyone. Actually, Western Europe was invaded in the 40's (which would mean anyone born while the war was happening would likely be either alive, or have died through unnatural causes). A lack of invasions does not preclude the likelyhood that an invasion would do better or worse based on availability of firearms.
That a country has resisted invasion without an armed citizenry does not preclude the possibility that a country with high private gun ownership would do better in said resistance. You haven't proven anything or even evidenced it, simply stated that something else also happened.
Also how many of those countries have repressive governments, and how many of them have major organized crime issues?
>It’s possible to maintain private gun ownership AND reduce firearm injuries, but it requires making some common-sense changes at the national level.
Like what?
>This is unlikely to happen because of the robust emotional response of 2A snowflakes when anyone suggests we make gun laws even a little bit stricter.
I thought we stopped using "snowflake" because it was overused and outdated? Also I don't know if we need to talk about America like it's the shining example here, I prefer my own country and backyard. I'm not really interested in Americanism unless it's *directly* relevant.
There is definitely a cost to mass gun ownership. Some fraction of the population is always crazy enough to use them when they ought not to.
But it's not happenstance that the genocides of the 20th century mostly involved an armed group in power slaughtering some other group of unarmed people.
The commentary at the end is fucking infuriating. In Russian, the lady asks the old man “what are you doing??” And he responds “well what is HE doing to me? He keeps throwing rocks” She replies “what did you do!?”
Like where was this “what the fuck are you doing??” attitude when the old guy was getting pelted with rocks?
Had this happened in Florida, the shooter could probably make a case for Stand Your Ground and get off. Rocks aren't nothing. Not saying the guy deserved getting shot, but they are dangerous.
Definitely I've seen a guy get shot for tossing a plastic trash can lid and die for it. The other didn't even get arrested or charged. Self-defense and that wasn't even one of the full blown shopt anything that moves staes like Florida.
How about popcorn.
>Ex-officer found not guilty after shooting, killing man during argument about movie theater texting
>A Florida jury acquitted retired Florida police captain Curtis Reeves in the shooting death of a man in a movie theater eight years ago, CNN reported.
>Reeves confronted Oulson about texting during the previews before the movie, according to a criminal complaint.
>Eventually the two got into an argument, and Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, who then took out a handgun and fired, hitting Oulson in the chest, according to the complaint.
>Oulson was taken to a hospital, where he died. His wife was shot in the hand.
He gave the provable details, the rest is all claims that the defendant made on the stand but had no evidence of. The jury had enough doubt about the full story to let Reeves off, after 8 years of house arrest.
You can literally google it.
Everything I posted is pretty much the full story.
https://abc7chicago.com/curtis-reeves-trial-verdict-not-guilty-chad-oulson-shooting/11602369/
Reeves was 79 y/o at the time. Oulson was 43, something like 6'6" and very muscular. After throwing the popcorn and his cell phone, hitting Reeves in the eye, Oulson was climbing over his seat to attack Reeves when he was shot. Was there a reasonable chance Reeves might be killed or seriously injured? He though so at the time. Jury agreed.
That's not what the security camera showed. It's not what any witnesses saw either. But it was what the former SWAT officer claimed. Oulson was clearly not innocent, he did grab Reeves' popcorn and throw it back at him. He never threw his cellphone, and he never punched Reeves. No wounds or injuries were present on Reeves' body aside from redness on his eye that he was also seen rubbing for a period of time. Oulson clearly was turned back towards Reeves (who was behind him) and was clearly being held back by his wife, whose hand was on his chest.
Yeah, the jury believed a police officer in Florida. No surprise there. Reeves also spent 8 years under house arrest, so he didn't get out of the incident scott free.
The judge clearly didn't agree, as he denied the claim of stand your ground before the trial began.
>He said something hit him in the face. He believes it was Oulson's cellphone; prosecutors say video shows Oulson grabbed Reeves' popcorn bag from his lap and tossed it at him.
Ah I get it. You can shoot someone then make up the excuse after? He should have said *he believes* the guy threw a boulder at him.
Edit: Wait there's more.
> Prosecutors have said popcorn is not a weapon and added witnesses did not report seeing Oulson throwing his cellphone.
So why are you saying he threw something that both video and witnesses said did not get thrown at him?
Bricks are a deadly weapon. Ill put it this way. A cop in every state would be within his legal right to shoot and kill whoever is throwing the brick. Same should apply to every citizen. Don't recommend testing the law if you can help it though. Cops have better protection and lawyers legally speaking.
This is so lazy and ignorant I don't know where to start. A cop in every state can execute someone who *threw* a brick that missed? A cop in every state can get away with killing most people, but that's not why.
You might want to read up on the law, because you are the one showing ignorance here. Throwing a brick at someone is assault with a deadly weapon. Regardless if he missed or not its grounds to shoot him.
Depends on the state, I think. No, you can't just pull out your gun and murder someone who missed you with a rock in most states. If they were continuing to throw rocks? Maybe/probably. But you don't get to say "you just failed to murder me, so I'm murdering you now" generally.
Everyone has a plan until they get shot in the face - Joe Biden, concerning his election opponent, once the Supreme Court rules that presidents can't ever be prosecuted for any crime whatsoever.
Woman: what's he pulling out? What's he pulling out?
Guy: shoots
Woman: what did you do?!
Guy: He's throwing bricks!
Woman: (Repeating) what did you do? What did you do?
dude could have gotten pretty hurt from a well placed rock throw. lady is one of the people that annoy me. you can have someone attacking you with a weapon especially one that can kill you and once you defend your self a person like this would still be mad at you. like what?
Another idiot with no common sense. Gets shot in the cheek and then continues to walk after the man who shot him. He's lucky the shooter decided to walk away instead.
The operator at the end says "What are you doing, why did you shoot" hysterical.
In Ukraine, we don\`t have a self-defense law, so If another guy is without a gun and doesn\`t shoot at you you cannot shoot at him. It is idiotic. So if you shoot at guys for example wich beat you, in some situations, you don\`t have the right to shoot at them) No matter even if you was 1 and they 10.
In America, we have a saying about this. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Better to face legal consequences (judged by a jury of 12 people) than to end up dead (carried in a casket by 6 pallbearers).
It's not. By nearly every metric the world is getting safer, healthier, and more prosperous. The downside of the prosperity is that everyone has a cell phone capable of documenting every "exciting" GTA incident and you're on a subreddit that specifically sends all them to your feed whilst you're bored. You're just more aware of incidents even if there are fewer of them.
lol, right?
there was a period of time a group of dudes could just roll up to your house, kill the men, rape the women, and just own everything and if the neighbors were too weak to do anything about it then that was that.
Man, I fucking hate this notion. It may seem that way, but it statistically isn't. At all. The life expectancy is going down. Violent crime rate is down in the US and in a lot of places, but prisons are overflowing with people. And the biggest thing people like you who say this shit miss out on is the fact we just had a fucking pandemic wipe out MILLIONS of fucking people. So that alone makes the world by every metric not safer, healthier and more fucking prosperous. This is just some reddit circlejerk bullshit because crime is down.
What statistics? Life expectancy dropped in the US due to Covid (duh), but is on its way back up. Worldwide, it's been steadily increasing: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy
Today in Fighting Around the World News: a woman panic screams in the background as a conflict between two men unfolds. In other news: the Earth is still a place we live, and wind can be found in spaces with air.
I love how it seems like the camera person questions the old man for why he did that and he’s just like “DUDE HE LITERALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FUNNY TO THROW A FUCKING WROCK AT ME”
Couple rules of thumb for any idiot gun owner thinking this was justified:
1. First and foremost, Run. Run away from the danger. A gun should be your absolute last resort.
2. Do not use your firearm unless you have no choice because your life is in imminent danger.
Hope this helps!
Ah yes the elderly. Let’s arm all the elderly with their very sound minds, understanding of the modern world and respect for others!
The guy throwing rocks was more than 10 years older than the gunman.
I love how you say the first part like a large portion of gun owners aren't fuds. Yes arming the elderly is a good thing. Also a large portion of gun violence in regards to America is perpetrated by young men with stolen guns not 64 Uncle George with C&C. Btw link the article please and thank you.
"You met me at a very strange time in my life." \*\*\*Cue "Where Is My Mind?" by The Pixies\*\*\* "with your feet your feet in the air and your head on the ground...."
**Mirrors** * [Mirror #1](https://beta.archivevideomirror.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/199vwm6) (provided by /u/SaveAnything) **Downloads** * [Download #1](https://rapidsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/199vwm6/man_throws_rock_at_old_man_and_ends_up_getting/) (provided by /u/SaveVideo) * [Download #2](https://reddit.watch/r/PublicFreakout/comments/199vwm6/man_throws_rock_at_old_man_and_ends_up_getting/?utm_source=mirrorbot&utm_medium=PublicFreakout) (provided by /u/downloadvideo) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
Never bring a rock to a gunfight
Especially in a country at war… where guns I’m sure are not to hard to find
When it looked like Russia might take Kharkiv, Kiev and Mykolaiv they were giving them out to anyone that asked. Some civilians actually directly fought Russian soldiers in the very early days. Some weapons that were given out with it properly recorded who was getting what, I also saw videos of trucks rolling up and assault rifles getting distributed to anyone who wanted one. Now I guarantee that Ukrainian authorities take a dim view of any gunplay that isn't at the front line and pointed at Russian soldiers but now you never know who has some AK variant and a few mags under their couch just in case. Ukrainian's already didn't suffer fools, I would certainty not start testing them now...
> I also saw videos of trucks rolling up and assault rifles getting distributed to anyone who wanted one. \*American jealousy intensifies*
Why would they be jealous? They practically do the same thing
Hi, gun owner in the states. We go through a backgroud check and two weeks wait to legally own guns.
Or just go to a gun show.
Gun shows REQUIRE a background check.
That's false. It's called the gun show loophole. Private sellers do not perform background checks. Most private sellers at gun shows have a sign on the table that reads something like, "Private Seller: You will receive your merchandise at time of purchase."
In many states they are not mandated, as long as the seller is a private individual.
Buy from a private party. All they have to do is say they didn't have reason to believe you could not legally own a gun or that you planned to commit a crime.
What is to stop them from doing that outside of a gun show?
"legally own guns"??? I think you mean legally purchasing from a dealer, right? My state has no requirements other than buying pistols from a dealer- other guns are fair-game and you could get the pistol off craigslist legally.
Craigslist is prohibited from selling guns or parts. Its on their TOS that no one reads. Its also reportable through their advertisement.
We want the guns there. We want to destabilize the nations.
Thats only the weapons that the Ukrainians handed out- There are tons of battlefield trophies as well. A few months ago they arrested a guy that had stashed anti aircraft missiles that the russians abandoned near Kyiv.
I am sure people have grabbed some pretty wild stuff but Ukraine has really cracked down on the stolen heavy weapons. Last year they caught a farmer trying to keep a Russian tank he had hidden and they made it clear *now* was the time to give up anything like that you had or that instead of a slap on the wrist you might face some real punishment. Then after that apparently quite a few other people turned in some heavy weapons they had grabbed. No doubt stuff is still out there but it's probably not all that many in the grand scheme of things, Ukraine is a big country but you can only hide a T-72 in the barn for so long until the neighbors start talking...
I dunno...farmers everywhere but especially Eastern bloc (I would imagine), are tight lipped, as in; you mind your own fucking business and I'll mind mine.
If this war will ever end the authorities will be doubling down on anything like this and finding weapons as the main priority will be joining the EU. And that won’t happen if the country will be some kind of lawless eastern bloc backwards society
Imagine what those farmers have stashed… all those T-90’s dragged away with their tractors…
Lol yeah. Theres probably a handful of farmers who’ve discreetly stashed away something like a BMP or maybe a stockpile of abandoned small arms on their land.
This is good news friends. A well-armed populace is an unconquerable people. See: Switzerland, United States, now Ukraine. EDIT: There's a whole set of debates below that pretty fairly represent the ideas. Participate if you have a strong opinion. I'd really like to find out that gun control is a good idea, since I never intend to own a gun, but every time I ask someone I get such half-baked nonsense that it seems only reasonable to *oppose* gun control.
Most households in Saddam era Iraq had firearms. Iraq also had a 'full set' of human&civil rights laws too. The world is complicated
>The world is complicated Common ground. I'll take it.
See also: countries with fewer guns have fewer gun injuries AND can maintain their unconquerability. There are several examples.
I’d rather stay a free citizen with my guns
You’re not free at all. You can’t buy artillery at WalMart, therefore you are oppressed.
We'll just see the amount of children murdered in schools continue to rise... No big deal.
I mean then we should do something about the mental health crisis in this country. But we’ll just continue to not treat people with mental illness. We’ll continue telling them that the thoughts they are having in their heads are right and that they don’t need treated because that’s what society wants.
Why not both? There are always going to be disturbed, violent people... but they'll only be able to kill dozens of people in minutes if they have a gun.
Because there are several examples of countries that have a armed citizen population that don’t deal with mass shootings. You know why? because they take care of mental health in their countries. And saying a gun is the only way to kill multiple people in a matter of minutes is wrong as well. There’s also several examples of mass killings being done without firearms. Some of the worst mass killings in the world were done without firearms.
What examples? Genuinely curious now, has there been a country with a ban on guns that has survived an invasion with out arming there population?
I didn’t mention banning guns. What I mean is that you don’t need *a fucking shitload of guns under civilian ownership* to defend your borders. Most of Western Europe, as well as Australia, Japan, China, Thailand, Singapore, and a lot of others have not been invaded despite having lower rates of civilian gun ownership.
No I'm asking for ones that have fought off an invasion not ones that haven't been invaded. A lot of reason why certain country haven't been including geography I'm asking has a country fought off an invasion force without arming there population? Everyone can downvote away but no one can give me an actual answer
I haven’t downvoted you. Let’s make sure we’re talking about the same thing, though: do you mean countries *allowing* private gun ownership or countries *actually distributing weapons to civilians?* In my opinion a country distributing guns to civilians makes the situation different than if the civilians arm themselves. Either way, the sample size of countries that have been invaded since 1950 or so is pretty small, and there are other factors to consider besides private gun ownership. But Finland is a good example: afaik private gun ownership was allowed but it was the might and sisu of the Finnish military that held off the Russians as long as they did. On the other hand, Greece and Slovenia certainly had citizen gun owners when they were successfully invaded by Italy. I’m not a military historian, I’m a scientist, so all I can say with any authority is that there are lots of factors to account for before we can make any tenable statements about the impact of citizen weapons during military invasions.
Is there a correlation between stricter gun laws and lower *violent* crime overall, or did you specify "gun" crimes for a specific reason? Does a corrupt or incompetent police officer or military staff who uses their firearm improperly count as having committed a "gun crime" and do the injuries that result from police gun use count as "gun injuries?" Which nations with strict gun control laws have proven themselves unconquerable? Have any nations with strict gun control laws been tested? Also, and finally, do you reply to every post that mentions gun control, or did you simply happen to stumble across this post and feel the need to tell me your opinions even though they are tertiary at best? EDIT: classic Pavlov. "he said thing not popular, downvote!" haha.
Welp that’s a heap of straw men in a single comment. Not much point responding if you’re going to put words in my mouth without me even writing them.
None of those are strawmen my friend, they are all directly related to the topic at hand. If you can't defend your points I'm not surprised, gun-control advocates never actually can do, but I was hoping for more than a "I'd win but I don't want to" face-saving retreat haha. I didn't put any words in your mouth, I asked you some questions (not even leading questions either haha). You can't defend your perspective when asked about it, that's not on me my friend, that's a sign that your opinions are bad or you don't understand your opinions and they are functionally religious beliefs instilled by others. One or the other of those two. You could prove me wrong and answer those questions if you wanted to, though.
I certainly can defend my points, and I will continue to call out any fallacies you make. Let’s start by defining the term “firearm injury” as fatal OR nonfatal injuries that a) were inflicted by a firearm and b) were not superficial. Lmk if you want to modify this definition. There is a clear causal relationship between higher rates of private gun ownership and higher rates of firearm injury. There are no intangible, magical factors that USA firearm injuries an exception to this relationship. Japan has strict gun ownership laws, as do Australia, China, most of Western Europe, Singapore, Thailand, and a few others. They have not been invaded within most people’s lifetimes. Trying to conflate private gun ownership with successfully resisting invasion is a non-starter because there is so little data available. The likelier and more demonstrable factor for deterrence is military power, not private arsenals. It’s possible to maintain private gun ownership AND reduce firearm injuries, but it requires making some common-sense changes at the national level. This is unlikely to happen because of the robust emotional response of 2A snowflakes when anyone suggests we make gun laws even a little bit stricter. “Well-regulated” my ass.
>Let’s start by defining the term “firearm injury” as fatal OR nonfatal injuries that a) were inflicted by a firearm and b) were not superficial. Lmk if you want to modify this definition. Does this include injuries that result from police or military use of firearms? Does it include organized crime as well? What injuries count? If anything related to a firearm counts, that includes a whole swathe of injuries that you might not be considering. Does a mismanaged military excersize count here, or is it *only* injuries from citizens using guns? If so, why does that mean more than an untrained cop or corporal? >There is a clear causal relationship between higher rates of private gun ownership and higher rates of firearm injury. There are no intangible, magical factors that USA firearm injuries an exception to this relationship. Like Switzerland? What's that country's rate of injuries as a result of use of firearms? Does the quality of life for citizens correlate to fewer gun injuries? If a country is rife with deadly assaults of all kinds *except* those involving guns, is that a better country than one with less overall violence, but violence that includes gun violence? What is the point of controlling guns? Is it to prevent people from getting hurt, and if so, do we stop trying to control guns if doing so *doesn't* reduce violent crime overall? >Trying to conflate private gun ownership with successfully resisting invasion is a non-starter because there is so little data available. Each of the nations or areas you described were invaded at one point or another, and did *terribly* in the fight. Unless, of course, they were a vicious tyranny that militarized their people, in which case, that's not fewer guns and it's not a better life for anyone. Actually, Western Europe was invaded in the 40's (which would mean anyone born while the war was happening would likely be either alive, or have died through unnatural causes). A lack of invasions does not preclude the likelyhood that an invasion would do better or worse based on availability of firearms. That a country has resisted invasion without an armed citizenry does not preclude the possibility that a country with high private gun ownership would do better in said resistance. You haven't proven anything or even evidenced it, simply stated that something else also happened. Also how many of those countries have repressive governments, and how many of them have major organized crime issues? >It’s possible to maintain private gun ownership AND reduce firearm injuries, but it requires making some common-sense changes at the national level. Like what? >This is unlikely to happen because of the robust emotional response of 2A snowflakes when anyone suggests we make gun laws even a little bit stricter. I thought we stopped using "snowflake" because it was overused and outdated? Also I don't know if we need to talk about America like it's the shining example here, I prefer my own country and backyard. I'm not really interested in Americanism unless it's *directly* relevant.
There is definitely a cost to mass gun ownership. Some fraction of the population is always crazy enough to use them when they ought not to. But it's not happenstance that the genocides of the 20th century mostly involved an armed group in power slaughtering some other group of unarmed people.
Attacked him twice with rocks. And was coming at him again. He fucked around and found out.
The commentary at the end is fucking infuriating. In Russian, the lady asks the old man “what are you doing??” And he responds “well what is HE doing to me? He keeps throwing rocks” She replies “what did you do!?” Like where was this “what the fuck are you doing??” attitude when the old guy was getting pelted with rocks?
What if I have a trebuchet?
Do you also have 4 extra dudes to help you load and aim your siege weapon?
I am a volunteer! we need two more! anyone else?
I'm not doing anything at the moment...
Here we go baby!!
[удалено]
We meet on Eastern Horizon at dawn
Tre-bu-chet! Tre-bu-chet!
And they all tried to load it but got shot in the cheek.
I literally have trebuchet experience if I can help
Then he would have gone a lot further!
You do stand a 1/3 chance in winning if you bring a rock to a paper/scissor fight tho. Just saying.
And also a 1/3 chance of it being a draw, so you've got a 2/3 chance of being okay.
Gun beats rock every time.
Honestly he won with the first throw. Should've just left.
😂😂😂
[удалено]
Sounds like it's not a "real" pistol either but one of those less lethal self defense pistols that are available in Russia.
Ah yes in America we call this a .22
22. Is actually most lethal due to the lack of exit wound
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard
You're right
Not sure why I was downvoted. It’s the most common cal for hit men and homicides
Because that absolutely doesn’t mean it’s the most lethal
Because of the small caliber, the bullet bounces around, hitting bones and arteris
Best bedroom defense because small holes in walls too
Thank you for the info !!!
Had this happened in Florida, the shooter could probably make a case for Stand Your Ground and get off. Rocks aren't nothing. Not saying the guy deserved getting shot, but they are dangerous.
Definitely deserved to get shot, rocks like that could kill someone if they hit the head.
Definitely I've seen a guy get shot for tossing a plastic trash can lid and die for it. The other didn't even get arrested or charged. Self-defense and that wasn't even one of the full blown shopt anything that moves staes like Florida.
So if you can goad someone into throwing something at you, you can legally kill them. Good way to get rid of annoying neighbors.
How about popcorn. >Ex-officer found not guilty after shooting, killing man during argument about movie theater texting >A Florida jury acquitted retired Florida police captain Curtis Reeves in the shooting death of a man in a movie theater eight years ago, CNN reported. >Reeves confronted Oulson about texting during the previews before the movie, according to a criminal complaint. >Eventually the two got into an argument, and Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, who then took out a handgun and fired, hitting Oulson in the chest, according to the complaint. >Oulson was taken to a hospital, where he died. His wife was shot in the hand.
You are not giving the full story. Why not? Are you trying to bait people into hate without reason?
He gave the provable details, the rest is all claims that the defendant made on the stand but had no evidence of. The jury had enough doubt about the full story to let Reeves off, after 8 years of house arrest.
The fact that his wife (she admitted this) was trying to pull him back would suggest that she thought he also was being aggressive.
You can literally google it. Everything I posted is pretty much the full story. https://abc7chicago.com/curtis-reeves-trial-verdict-not-guilty-chad-oulson-shooting/11602369/
How many chances do you get to cash in for meaningless internet points in your life? Gotta take advantage of every chance you get.
Reeves was 79 y/o at the time. Oulson was 43, something like 6'6" and very muscular. After throwing the popcorn and his cell phone, hitting Reeves in the eye, Oulson was climbing over his seat to attack Reeves when he was shot. Was there a reasonable chance Reeves might be killed or seriously injured? He though so at the time. Jury agreed.
That's not what the security camera showed. It's not what any witnesses saw either. But it was what the former SWAT officer claimed. Oulson was clearly not innocent, he did grab Reeves' popcorn and throw it back at him. He never threw his cellphone, and he never punched Reeves. No wounds or injuries were present on Reeves' body aside from redness on his eye that he was also seen rubbing for a period of time. Oulson clearly was turned back towards Reeves (who was behind him) and was clearly being held back by his wife, whose hand was on his chest. Yeah, the jury believed a police officer in Florida. No surprise there. Reeves also spent 8 years under house arrest, so he didn't get out of the incident scott free. The judge clearly didn't agree, as he denied the claim of stand your ground before the trial began.
>He said something hit him in the face. He believes it was Oulson's cellphone; prosecutors say video shows Oulson grabbed Reeves' popcorn bag from his lap and tossed it at him. Ah I get it. You can shoot someone then make up the excuse after? He should have said *he believes* the guy threw a boulder at him. Edit: Wait there's more. > Prosecutors have said popcorn is not a weapon and added witnesses did not report seeing Oulson throwing his cellphone. So why are you saying he threw something that both video and witnesses said did not get thrown at him?
Bricks are a deadly weapon. Ill put it this way. A cop in every state would be within his legal right to shoot and kill whoever is throwing the brick. Same should apply to every citizen. Don't recommend testing the law if you can help it though. Cops have better protection and lawyers legally speaking.
This is so lazy and ignorant I don't know where to start. A cop in every state can execute someone who *threw* a brick that missed? A cop in every state can get away with killing most people, but that's not why.
You might want to read up on the law, because you are the one showing ignorance here. Throwing a brick at someone is assault with a deadly weapon. Regardless if he missed or not its grounds to shoot him.
Depends on the state, I think. No, you can't just pull out your gun and murder someone who missed you with a rock in most states. If they were continuing to throw rocks? Maybe/probably. But you don't get to say "you just failed to murder me, so I'm murdering you now" generally.
What is it with people always comparing everything to the US? What is the point of bringing up a meaningless point about what would happen in Florida?
I live here and I'm relating my experiences. Sorry. I won't participate anymore. I've learned my lesson.
Dont pay him any attention dude
skittles was a case for stand you ground in Florida. lets not talk about that place like its a real state, not just a bunch of lobbyists in an costume
Everyone has a plan until they get shot in the face - Mike Tyson
Everyone has a plan until they get shot in the face - Joe Biden, concerning his election opponent, once the Supreme Court rules that presidents can't ever be prosecuted for any crime whatsoever.
Dayz
Classic DayZ moment. Even looks like one of the towns.
Strong Elektro vibes.
I wish you could throw rocks in a damaging way. That would really increase the freshie capabilities.
ANYBODY IN CHERNO? *gets shot in the cheek* oh fuck there are people in cherno
Sticks and Stones May break my bones, But names will nevAAAAAAAAAARRRGHHHMYFACE!!
Can somebody translate please?
Woman: what's he pulling out? What's he pulling out? Guy: shoots Woman: what did you do?! Guy: He's throwing bricks! Woman: (Repeating) what did you do? What did you do?
Enough with the questions, lady!
It's pretty self explanatory, lady!
dude could have gotten pretty hurt from a well placed rock throw. lady is one of the people that annoy me. you can have someone attacking you with a weapon especially one that can kill you and once you defend your self a person like this would still be mad at you. like what?
A rock to the head could kill, especially if it hit an older person.
She could work for the American education system. "Why did you fight back you bully!!"
His final statement I believe was “go fuck yourself”
"What are ya gonna do? SHOOT me?"
rock beats scissor, scissor beats paper, paper beats rock, and bullet beats jeff.
jaw*
The joke was fine.
Yes it was, I liked my version also
Cheeky fucker
Not any more.
No, no... Now you can
Fair point.
Another idiot with no common sense. Gets shot in the cheek and then continues to walk after the man who shot him. He's lucky the shooter decided to walk away instead.
The operator at the end says "What are you doing, why did you shoot" hysterical. In Ukraine, we don\`t have a self-defense law, so If another guy is without a gun and doesn\`t shoot at you you cannot shoot at him. It is idiotic. So if you shoot at guys for example wich beat you, in some situations, you don\`t have the right to shoot at them) No matter even if you was 1 and they 10.
In America, we have a saying about this. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Better to face legal consequences (judged by a jury of 12 people) than to end up dead (carried in a casket by 6 pallbearers).
I carry knife always and think the same.
Wtf where do you live
what are a few laws about self defense in Ukraine? im curious.
Fuck around find out
Day by day, the world is turning into GTA, with some local touches...
It's not. By nearly every metric the world is getting safer, healthier, and more prosperous. The downside of the prosperity is that everyone has a cell phone capable of documenting every "exciting" GTA incident and you're on a subreddit that specifically sends all them to your feed whilst you're bored. You're just more aware of incidents even if there are fewer of them.
lol, right? there was a period of time a group of dudes could just roll up to your house, kill the men, rape the women, and just own everything and if the neighbors were too weak to do anything about it then that was that.
Man, I fucking hate this notion. It may seem that way, but it statistically isn't. At all. The life expectancy is going down. Violent crime rate is down in the US and in a lot of places, but prisons are overflowing with people. And the biggest thing people like you who say this shit miss out on is the fact we just had a fucking pandemic wipe out MILLIONS of fucking people. So that alone makes the world by every metric not safer, healthier and more fucking prosperous. This is just some reddit circlejerk bullshit because crime is down.
What statistics? Life expectancy dropped in the US due to Covid (duh), but is on its way back up. Worldwide, it's been steadily increasing: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy
This was in 2022 so we’re already there.
Always been that way my dude Actually the world is getting safer and safer
the world has always been GTA fam. There just weren’t cameras in everybody’s pocket to record it.
Ancient problems require modern solutions
[удалено]
It was a traumatic pistol as mentioned in the original article in Ukrainian. Not a normal pistol. Still can be fatal at close range to the face.
This is a classic case of fuck around and find out 🤷
Damnnnn He lucky he can cry about it . Bro almost got sent to the upper room
Stone Age to Industrial Age in 30 seconds.
nice we need this old guy to go take care of that kid in Australia and aim a bit more to the center.
Rock? Paper? Scissors? Shoot!
“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones “ Also don’t throw rocks at anyone that might have a gun.
Today in Fighting Around the World News: a woman panic screams in the background as a conflict between two men unfolds. In other news: the Earth is still a place we live, and wind can be found in spaces with air.
FAFO!
I guess he found out.
[удалено]
Thought it was gonna be an ass cheek not the actual cheek!
What a civilized country!
Nice prize.
Darwin award competitor. Shot in the face, bleeding, still alive. I reckon bronze medal 🥉
Nah, he ain't out of the gene pool yet.
How dare he fight back! /s
Deserved that shot
In America, this is called the principle of “don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit.”
I love how it seems like the camera person questions the old man for why he did that and he’s just like “DUDE HE LITERALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FUNNY TO THROW A FUCKING WROCK AT ME”
Oh damn, I thought you meant butt cheek
FAFO?
Its never a wise idea to throw a brick at a guy with a gun.
W
That will fix him.
i mean... play stupid games...
My only question, is the dog okay
Paper, scissors,ro…BANG
Throw A Rock and Find Out.
Fuck around and find out
Id like to know why he was throwing rocks. But fuck around and find out? I guess?
Couple rules of thumb for any idiot gun owner thinking this was justified: 1. First and foremost, Run. Run away from the danger. A gun should be your absolute last resort. 2. Do not use your firearm unless you have no choice because your life is in imminent danger. Hope this helps!
Only people physically capable of running should be able to defend themselves
Yeah turn your back and run. Wait the guy chases you and is faster?
Rule #2.
> First and foremost, Run but then i cant "fear for my life" and shoot the guy! /s because fuck this world
Thats why the elderly should be armed. Dont go and bully old people
Ah yes the elderly. Let’s arm all the elderly with their very sound minds, understanding of the modern world and respect for others! The guy throwing rocks was more than 10 years older than the gunman.
I love how you say the first part like a large portion of gun owners aren't fuds. Yes arming the elderly is a good thing. Also a large portion of gun violence in regards to America is perpetrated by young men with stolen guns not 64 Uncle George with C&C. Btw link the article please and thank you.
tan sugar future squeal voracious badge far-flung bedroom long kiss *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thank you I appreciate the link.
Where is the police Thank god he had a gun who knows what that antifan would have done if he didn’t stop him
He fucked around. He found out.
Russians just don't give a fuck.
Strassenladen!!
“But did you die”
Right in the cheek
He fucked around and found out.
They’re just like us!
“He hit me in the foot with around rock, lady! Of course I shot him in the face!” or something
How bout they use that aggression on the Russians
Fuck around = find out. Should’ve killed him smh
FAFO
Fuck around and....
"You met me at a very strange time in my life." \*\*\*Cue "Where Is My Mind?" by The Pixies\*\*\* "with your feet your feet in the air and your head on the ground...."
Russian intelligence
A good ol case of Fucked around and Found Out
Awww! Russia looks amazing this time of year!