The “guns don't kill people” crowd sure seem to think books can make you gay.
🇳🇱
No we dont....
I, like the vast majority of the "guns dont kill people crowd" are very very much pro free speech and against banning of books.
Im sure there are some pro gun people who arent... but to claim they represent the pro-gun rights community is not remotely accurate to reality.
How ya figure that? The logic is the same, guns dont kill people, books dont make people gay... why would my argument that guns dont kill people suggest to you that that means books make people gay, they dont either.
@Elleaster Ahh ok :)
@ErikUden @freemo @Elleaster Except that spoons have a legitimate use and taking them away would have a negative impact on ppls quality of life.
Right, cause all those good people whose lives were saved because they had a gun and were able to protect themselves... thats not a "legitimate use" and wouldnt have had a negative impact if it was taken away.... Quite obviously your statement is disproven by example, even one example disproves it.
You want me to cite the fact that at some point in history a person who had a gun was able to defend themselves in a situation they would have been killed? You really need a citation for that?
I mean sure i dont mind linking you to one of many many cases where that happened... but seems kind of absurd that you think in the history of the world that has never happened.
But yea if you really need an actual cited example (which again seems very absurd and speaks to your bias that you think this has never happened)... here ya go:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/okla-mom-sarah-mckinley-wont-face-charges-for-shooting-intruder/
@freemo @Elleaster @ErikUden So that's an example of someone who wasn't trying to kill anyone being killed by someone with a gun. But let's count that as one. In 2012.
One in 10 years? Is that the best you can do?
Are you a serious person?
You claimed it doesnt happen. Only need one to prove you wrong and invalidate your argument.. why would i wastetime getting 2 or 10? Anyobe with two braincells knows there aremore examples than just this one in all of time and history. It was abserd you asked for one.
@Elleaster @ErikUden @freemo you need more than 2 or 10 because I can provide evidence of 10s of thousands of cases where guns made things worse.
If you are a serious person you will understand that a tool that works 1 time in 10000 is not a tool that works.
No I dont... You argued spoons sometimes serve a legitimate purpose, and strongly implied guns never serve a legitimate purpose.
To disprove you completely only a single example of it serving a legitimate purpose disproves you, and that has been done.
The problem isnt that you dont have a valid argument that would require a more "serious" response, its that you frame your arguments using bad faith to sound more "slick" by being hyperbolic thinkingi t helps when in fact it just makes you trivial to disprove...
Now your stepping back from your illegitimate hyperbolic stance of there being no legitimate use, moving the goal post, and trying to say we need to argue that the majority of times a gun is used it must be a legitiate use... very different argument, and may have been valid if you bothered to argue in good faith, but you didnt, and I wont really waste time arguing a point you never made..
Argue in good faith next time. That said, you can apologize, state your case in a good-faith way and I will be happy to address that in a more serious way.
@freemo @BenAveling @Elleaster @ErikUden
I suspect I disagree with @freemo on guns and policy, but I support the call for good-faith argument and legitimate discussion. I am not prepared to have that discussion right now, but I really enjoyed seeing the call for it.
Thanks, disagreement is always most welcome, its how we all grow. And no one is ever obligated to a debate, not in the mood, sit back, no worries. But if someone engages, they should at least try to do so in good-faith or not at all (As you point out more or less).
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
I shot a dog once that was terrorizing my neighborhood and came within a hair of killing my dad. It was a miserable, sh*tty thing to have to do and the police came within a hair of ruining my life over it, but there's your example.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
The one thing that requires a gun to legally protect oneself
Is another gun.
But do keep the arms industry happy.
@aschatermees @Elleaster @freemo @ErikUden they’re not even good at that!
“Bring a gun to a knife fight; stay away from gun fights”
Nope, anytime the agvressor is stronger. A woman vs a man will almost never be fair or equal well the man is trying to kill the woman. The gun is an equalizer.
Policies that restrict gun use are highly sexist all the time.
@ErikUden @aschatermees @freemo @Elleaster Your logic seems impeccable, and yet, men use guns against women far often than the other way around. I guess reality just hasn’t caught up with your ability to reason.
Dont worry I am not ignoring you. I havent answered you yet because you are arguing in bad faith and therefore less effective to discuss with you... Its mild though so I am still willing to engage for the moment..
@freemo Bored now. Bye bye.
Bye, feel free to reach out anytime... but please, next time, try to discuss in good faith rather than just wasting everyones time in trying to have a good faith conversation where your only intent is to troll... it does no good when it comes to progress and we just dont need that kind of toxicity in an already hostile world.
Or you know, women have been oppressed so much that they are denied carry licenses more than men, or perhaps dont even seek them as often as men.
Your logic, if you can call it that, is that guns arent effective at protecting women, proven by the fact that fewer women have guns... the wha... that makes no sense on any level.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster in that case you should not sell but issue guns, to women only.
Good Idea, We should run a nationwide, tax paid service, that provides free high quality guns to women... That sounds like a good idea, thanks for proposing it!
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
You're welcome. Meanwhile don't forget to retract any and all fire arms from men in the USA
Why would we have to do that... we agreed women having guns caused equality, and with them getting free guns there would be no need. If you took guns away from men you'd create inequality again, just this time favoring the women... that seems counter to your intention of creating equality.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
Didn't you just say that the gun is an equaliser for the woman against the fysically overpowering but otherwise unarmed man? How then is adding a gun to the male agressor providing the woman equality? Or should she just be holding the world at gunpoint from the moment she opens her front door?
> Didn't you just say that the gun is an equaliser for the woman against the fysically overpowering but otherwise unarmed man? How then is adding a gun to the male agressor providing the woman equality? Or should she just be holding the world at gunpoint from the moment she opens her front door?
Sorta. A gun int he hand of a woman equalizers her against a man with a gun in his hand... A woman with a gun against a man without a gun would put the woman at an advantage, but if its a physically stronger man assaulting the woman, that advantage is morally ok, of course, as we want the one defending themselves be the stronger...
But in general since either sex is capable of trying to kill either, on a societal level we would want them to have equal footing,a nd thus both have guns.
> How then is adding a gun to the male agressor providing the woman equality?
You didnt say "we shoudl ban all agressors from having guns" .. you said all men. Men are not always the agressor, ergo this is where your logic breaks down.
> How then is adding a gun to the male agressor providing the woman equality?
adding a gun to the male agressor might make them equal, but that is undesirable... providing gun to men, in general (regardless of if they are an agressor or not) is different that taking it away just from people who have been agressive.
> Or should she just be holding the world at gunpoint from the moment she opens her front door?
She should have one in her purse in case she gets raped.. If the rapist doesnt have a gun that gives her an advantage, good, if he does they are equal, still better... Since only some men are rapists this would be a failure of logic to say we should disarm men, though if you want to disarm people who have demonstrated violence in the past, while that is a complciated thing to do right, that is a fine goal.. its why criminals cant own.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
"You didnt say “we shoudl ban all agressors from having guns” .. you said all men."
Yes, I said "all men". Like you point out, it's hard to decide who will and who will not become violent. As for logics, I wish I could turn around your rhetoric: Not just any man is a potential agressor. I wish I could state in return that not just any woman is a potential victim.
She is.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
"She should have one in her purse in case she gets raped.."
Should you ever decide to study the stat's on rape, you would learn that it mostly takes place inside the victims home, by a person known to her, and often in situations where one would not carry a purse.
In fact, there is no way an external defensive device could ever "equalize" the difference in body mass, fysical reach or musclepower.
Sorry I'm back now, but sucked into a nearly 3 hour long business call.
> You didnt say “we shoudl ban all agressors from having guns” .. you said all men."
I didnt say either of these. At no point did I recommend we ban all men or all aggressors... I did point out when **you** suggested we ban all men from having guns that would be a bad idea, but if you could (which you cant) just exclusively ban all aggressors it might make sense.
> As for logics, I wish I could turn around your rhetoric: Not just any man is a potential agressor. I wish I could state in return that not just any woman is a potential victim.
Never said that every woman is a potential victim either... In fact, the ones with guns arent, so that is a counter point to it.
The point is, like it or hate it, statistically speaking if we are talking biological sex at birth, and not talking about trans or other people who change their gender/sex later... then of that studies show that something like 99% (or close to it) of men are physically stronger than women.
Attached is just one of many examples that show this, in this case grip strength.. You can see the overlap between men and women is very small.
So the point is "almost all men are capable of physically overpowering almost all women".. this is a factually correct statement. The fact that you have edge cases and outliers doesnt really change much about this.
> Should you ever decide to study the stat's on rape, you would learn that it mostly takes place inside the victims home, by a person known to her, and often in situations where one would not carry a purse.
I was quite aware of it when I said what I said... it also changes nothing about the reasoning... For starters even if the gun isnt in her purse that doesnt mean she wont have access to it in the home... but more importantly, even if it only protects her out of the home, so what? The point is there are many scenarios where it protects her, thus it is sexist to deny her the right to protect herself and have equal access to security.
> In fact, there is no way an external defensive device could ever "equalize" the difference in body mass, fysical reach or musclepower.
Thats quite naive.. If a man is 10 feet away then no matter what his body mass is, I can shoot him dead before he can get close enough to touch me.. Very clearly equalizing the body mass. No matter how strong you are it wont give you an advantage if your dead before you close the distance as you charge someone.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
"thus it is sexist to deny her the right to protect herself and have equal access to security."
Of course she does. This is not synonimous for owning or using a gun though. Because the right you claim she has is in fact the right to safety and to bodily integrity. Needing to protect oneself is a requirement, not a right, and certainly not a privilege to access a gun.
> Of course she does. This is not synonimous for owning or using a gun though. Because the right you claim she has is in fact the right to safety and to bodily integrity.
No gun ownership is very literally a right. It is the second one in fact of the "bill of rights", which iterates some of the first and most fundemental of definition of rights.
My guess is you meant "natural right" and not just "rights" which would include "legal rights".
> Needing to protect oneself is a requirement, not a right, and certainly not a privilege to access a gun.
Since one can **not** be secure from harm without a gun. She has a right to safety and freedom from bodily harm. Without a gun you do not have those rights and as such, access to a gun is also a right.
When the day comes that you eliminate crime through any means then maybe you can argue that, but as long as crime exists on **any level** a right to protect yourself from physical harm is synonymous with your right to own a gun.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
"Thats quite naive.. If a man is 10 feet away then no matter what his body mass is, I can shoot him dead before he can get close enough to touch me.."
It is quite naive to claim shooting a man at 10 feet distance beforehand of his agressive attack would be considered 'self defence'. That's very likely plain (attempted) murder in the eyes of a judge or jury.
> It is quite naive to claim shooting a man at 10 feet distance beforehand of his agressive attack would be considered 'self defence'. That's very likely plain (attempted) murder in the eyes of a judge or jury.
No one is claiming that a person simply running towards you is a justification to kill them, it is starting to feel like your arguing in bad faith but i will give you the benefit of the doubt...
Obviously we are talking about a person who obviously and clearly has violent attempts charging you, and that can take countless scenarios.
Maybe he already tried to rape her, she pulled away and started to run before he had a chance to get to his feet.
Maybe he clearly stated his intent to kill you as he starts to charge you
Maybe he is brandishing a knife and quick clearly intending violence.
There are **countless** ways someone is justified in killing or shooting someone charging them, **obviously** if your going to shoot someone to protect your life you need to make sure you do it when your life is in danger.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
Therefore the right to bodily integrety is better protected by educating men and women on the topic while they're young.
And at this point I can already imagine your return on something like words will not ever overpower bullets. But really that is just my final point: If guns over words define our rights, than we have no rights. Because guns are and will always be privilege.
> Therefore the right to bodily integrety is better protected by educating men and women on the topic while they're young.
No one is saying we shouldnt do that, or other ways to improve things... So you do this now rape coes from 15% of women down to 10% of women, or 5% or even 1%... guess what that 1% still need guns if they are to exercise their right to being able to protect themselves from bodily harm. Until you eliminate **all** cases then you cant say they have the right to protect themselves from bodily harm unless they have a right to a gun.
> And at this point I can already imagine your return on something like words will not ever overpower bullets.
No that would be a very idiotic response for me or anyone to have. Words have monumental effects, especially when we are talkign about words conveying life lessons at early age... please dont assume.
> But really that is just my final point: If guns over words define our rights, than we have no rights. Because guns are and will always be privilege.
You are constructing your argument against things you imagined I might say, not what I actually said... so this argument is invalid as it is not the claim or releated to any claim I'd make.
> Because guns are and will always be privilege.
Also this seems like a very invalid argument...I argued guns should be issued for free to everyone, paid for by taxes.. That doesnt sound like privilage to me, that sounds like equal access and eliminated financial barriers.
> implying guns don't have legitimate use
>> implying the threat of violence isn't a necessary cornerstone of civil security
>>> implying anyone other than the slaves were disarmed throughout human history
Bad takes require mental gymnastics... horrific takes can break your back
Just the way these things are.
Anyone who wants to disarm all normal people wants to turn all normal people into slaves, but probably won't admit it.
I like how the DNC still cites Crookshank for their gun control diatribes til this day. Jim Crow laws brought by the KKK. Vote slave party no matter who!
@freemo @Elleaster @ErikUden spoon ban, regulate chopsticks? 😉
@freemo @ErikUden Not all guns don't kill people people!