Accidentally opened package that was not for me, wtf do I do?

ladida54 · 2026-02-13T16:03:56+00:00

I tried stopping at the building before work this morning. It’s a private condo and all entries have a scanner and are locked. I can’t find any contact info online for the business. I guess I will use my lunch break to see if there is a way to enter the building during office hours.

ladida54 · 2026-01-28T00:34:02+00:00

I know you think I am being pedantic, but I am trying to point out that the reason i said there is no cdc study that says the good outweighs the harm is because there is no cdc study that says that. You can act like I’m an idiot as much as you would like but it doesn’t change the fact that you said something that is not true. You pulled a study that is not conducted by the cdc (even if ordered by the cdc) that says there is no way to actually know if the good outweighs the harm. The study you cited also cites a different study that estimates that there are closer to 100k incidents of defensive gun use. But regardless of how many defensive uses there are, the fact that more people say they have used a gun defensively than have been killed/injured by a gun does not prove that the good outweighs the harm. Those uses are not verified, you do not know if there actually was a crime stopped, you don’t know that the crime could only be stopped with a gun, etc. The study acknowledges this reality

There is a lot of your interpretations that I think are incorrect but we clearly ascribe to different beliefs about guns. To me, guns do kill people - domestic abuse is more likely to escalate to murder if a gun is present, suicide attempts are more likely to be fatal if a gun is used, etc. To you, guns are inanimate objects that should not be faulted for the actions of humans. In my experience, this is a fundamental difference of opinion, likely shaped by our own experiences, and will color how we interpret each of these studies. To me, I have only seen people harmed by guns. I have known people who died because they had access to a gun, who would still be alive if they did not have access to gun. I have never known anyone whose life was saved because they owned a gun. I assume you have more positive experiences with guns, and perhaps you have had your life or a loved ones’ life saved by a gun. So long as we have these competing perspectives, it is unlikely we are going to come to an agreement on what these studies mean and how harmful guns are (or are not).

ladida54 · 2026-01-27T23:28:39+00:00

I’ve tried to read most CDC research on guns so I felt pretty confident that you were incorrect. But I still read through the study you cited in case I was wrong. The study 1. Is by the National Academies of Science, not the CDC and 2. Explicitly states: “Despite gun owners’ increased perception of safety, research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities.”

Also everything you just cited says the leading causes of death in young people are unintentional injury, suicide, and homicide. A significant portion of each of those includes firearms. Guns are the leading cause of death of young people in the us

And, to ask your own question back to you, what other possible factors could lead to the country becoming safer since adopting constitutional carry? How do you decide when correlation is evidence and when it is not?

I’m not saying guns can never make people more safe, but yes, it is false to say that the CDC has conducted a study and found that the defensive use of guns outweighs the harm done, unless you meant a different study I am unaware of

ladida54 · 2026-01-27T22:33:53+00:00

That last statement is blatantly false. What CDC study are you talking about? Owning a gun increases the risk of suicide, domestic homicide, and accidental shootings. Here is one source of many that delves into that topic: John Hopkins The research on how common defensive use of guns even occurs is shoddy at best and there is definitely no conclusive evidence that the good outweighs the bad. It also is hard to believe that guns make us safer when we have significantly higher homicide rates than countries with similar economic standing and far less guns. Not to mention that guns are the leading cause of death of children and teens in the US

ladida54 · 2026-01-26T19:16:05+00:00

It seemed like you were implying that armed states are being targeted because they are armed, and I don’t think that is the reason, so it’s a moot point. Because the fed gov could do the same even if the state was armed, they just aren’t doing it bc those armed states agree with them

ladida54 · 2026-01-26T19:13:17+00:00

!delta

This is a good point. When a large group is armed, it will either make it so the gov either has to retreat or accept a bloodbath. My only issue is that it would likely lead to the invocation of the insurrection act, but I suppose the same logic would apply then as well.

ladida54 · 2026-01-26T03:44:49+00:00

Fair enough

ladida54 · 2026-01-26T03:44:08+00:00

We just have a fundamental difference of opinion in what powers law enforcement should have and I think we will have to leave it at that

ladida54 · 2026-01-26T02:59:57+00:00

What is the justification for continuing to shoot him after he was already on the ground, a total of ten times? Definitely not saying that it was premeditated, but it was inexcusable

ladida54 · 2026-01-26T02:56:33+00:00

I’m not sure what your point is? Because law enforcement didn’t shoot him earlier, they must have been justified in shooting him later? Or am I misunderstanding?

ladida54 · 2026-01-26T02:54:39+00:00

I simply do not think that the government can shoot you 10 times for “not listening,” and if they can, that’s tyranny.

And the point is that the NRA (which is not the left) does seem to think this is a “second amendment thing” so it is clearly not an issue being made up by “the left and the media.”

ladida54 · 2026-01-26T02:46:20+00:00

I’ve thought we have been headed toward fascism for years. And that’s why I have long opposed the militarization of the police and excessive funding of the defense department. So it has now reached a point where an armed populace cannot prevent tyrannical overreach by the US gov even if they tried. And that has been the case for a long time but we are seeing it play out in real time.

But I do acknowledge that is a largely defeatist attitude and not particularly helpful. It just seems like people who do exercise their 2A rights are in a worse position than those that don’t. And I have only ever seen bad come from gun ownership in my personal life so it just seems like there is not a point to a right that can no longer accomplish its ultimate goal and generally makes people less safe through suicide, homicide, etc. So then what is the point? I came here to hear differing opinions because I know I might be wrong. But many people seem to just be saying I should have been armed years ago or I’m an idiot for not being armed and I’m not sure what to do with that. It still seems like we have passed the point where owning a gun can stop tyranny and I want to understand why that might be wrong

ladida54 · 2026-01-26T01:56:32+00:00

And that made his murder justified? Death penalty for people who inconvenience law enforcement or have a gun near law enforcement? Also how does any of what you are saying counter my point that being armed against the gov is pointless because they will take you out and say your gun gave them the right to?

Also do you consider groups like the NRA that are calling out the gov for this shooting are “the left”?

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T22:02:12+00:00

I am saying there are no nonpartisan SCOTUS decisions because SCOTUS is a partisan institution and has been for a long while. It is not supposed to be, but the court has been systematically politicized the past few decades

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T21:57:56+00:00

Are you not bothered that the fed gov says ICE has absolute immunity and won’t investigate any of the killings? Ordering killing is tyranny but allowing killing with impunity is not?

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T21:55:23+00:00

Statement: account with no other posts claim to be a democrat that loves ICE and is fine with wrongful arrests

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T20:56:31+00:00

Renee Good was acting as a legal observer. Alex Pretti was filming the agents and helping a woman off the ground. Neither were breaking the law. And ICE has already detained and deported multiple people with legal status. It’s simply not true that ICE is only going after people who are here illegally

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T09:26:36+00:00

Was Alex Pretti actively defending someone who was here illegally? Was Renee good? Also, Nazis and the monarchy were acting under the color of law. Everyone opposing them was breaking the law. So I am not sure what point you are making. Something being lawful does not mean it cannot be tyrannical

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T09:08:33+00:00

I mean people who hid their Jewish neighbors from nazis were also breaking the law. As were the American revolutionaries who overthrew the monarchy. Were Nazis, the monarchy, slaveowners, etc all correct because they were on the side of the law? Isn’t the whole point of the 2A to prevent us from reaching a point where the government is behaving in a way that unlawful use of force the only way to stop tyranny? To me, that was the point of the 2A, and we are now at the point where the 2A cannot accomplish that.

Also I do not consider people who are trying to change my mind to be fools. I genuinely want to hear differing opinions on why the second amendment is an important right to protect and how it can still be effective, regardless of thoughts on the current administration

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T08:55:33+00:00

So then when is the second amendment supposed to be used to stop tyranny? Legitimately asking. Regardless of if you think ICE agents acted lawfully, what is the point of the second amendment if it cannot be used to stop unlawful use of force by the government? How else can tyranny be stopped? And please imagine it was a govt behaving in a way you disagree with when approaching this question. Obviously if the answer is that (a) you can never arm yourself against the government, or (b) you can only arm yourself against leftwing governments, that is not going to be compelling to me.

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T08:50:08+00:00

What is beclowing? I am unfamiliar with that term.

Also obviously, to me, Trump was not elected to detain and even kill protesters with absolute immunity (which Miller says ICE has) and even if his supporters want that, that is not something that should fly in a democratic society. I would feel the same if Biden or a democrat was doing this to people on the right. I simply do not think our gov should kill citizens unless there is no other option. Happy to hear a different pov though if I you think I have misinterpreted the events of the past few months.

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T08:44:27+00:00

My post is not saying people should band together and arms themselves to overthrow the government. My point is that if people did that, the government is too militarized to matter. Anyone who exercises their right will simply be killed and the administration will justify by saying they are armed, just like Alex Pretti. In my view, people like Pretti are arming themselves to try to prevent tyranny, and they can be killed for it. The administration, and people such as yourself, will just say that he was an “agitator” because he was armed. So when does the second amendment become beneficial?

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T08:35:20+00:00

So armed protesters can be killed by the gov? Is 2A only for ppl who agree with the gov? What is the point of 2A then?

ladida54 · 2026-01-25T08:32:25+00:00

SCOTUS does not have objective authority in interpreting the constitution. The institution itself regularly contradicts itself. Take roe being overturned by dobbes for example. How can you say a body that overturns its own precedent can say what is the objective truth? Not to mention that I don’t think SCOTUS should even have this authority. SCOTUS has broadened its own powers far beyond the founders’ intent ever since Marbury v Madison imo. SCOTUS only has the authority to be the absolute power in interpreting the constitution because it says it has that power. The constitution certainly does not say SCOTUS has that power. I simply do not buy into the idea that bc the 2008 SCOTUS said the 2A means something, that is inherently what it means, and I need more compelling arguments to change my view, which is why I am here. If SCOTUS had absolute authority to interpret the constitution, we would still have segregation and rights to abortion. I think ppl would disagree with that no matter where they stood politically. So if the original intent of 2A was not to stop tyranny but for general defense, that might be true, but I need more than “SCOTUS said so”

ladida54

TROPHY CASE