🇳🇱
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
> 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.
Just checked.. couldnt find too many amazing sources. But according to American Gun Facts, which itself seems balanced and cites its sources (FBI database here)... each year 200,000 rape cases of women are stopped specifically due to the woman having a concealed carry license...
So any argument that guns dont make sense in defending against rape because it often happens int he home or anything else is moot... thats 1/5 of a million women who werent raped. Thats a lot, thats a hell of a lot.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
My bad, I misinterpreted your first response as being sarcastic, as I was being sarcastic.
My final statement however bases on the reality that guns are NOT issued in accordance to feminin, or any other kind of emancipation. Guns require sale.
And how would that idea work out? Should we consider emancipating minors too? Should we emancipate minorities? Invalides? Where would we draw the line as to who gets to equalize their right to self defence?
Half sarcastic/joke indeed, you weren't wrong... but my point is this.. if your going to argue its privilage then i will argue sincerely to make it free for everyone if that is true... So **if** it truely is privilage, then easily solved, so its a moot point anyway.
> My final statement however bases on the reality that guns are NOT issued in accordance to feminin, or any other kind of emancipation. Guns require sale.
The problem is you said guns are **always** privilage.. in reality what you mean is they are only privilage when they are for sale, and when the poor arent given help to aquire them...
So if you want to argue guns are privilege, then fine, give them for free, either privilege isnt a problem at all (in which case you can keep selling them) or it is (in which case taxes can just give it to the poor)... either way the argument that guns are always privilege, as if you cant produce equal access to guns is untrue.
> And how would that idea work out? Should we consider emancipating minors too? Should we emancipate minorities? Invalides? Where would we draw the line as to who gets to equalize their right to self defence?
Everyone should have access to guns, and if you want to address the class issue, then everyone who cant afford them should get one. If minors should get one or not is up to the parents, and ultimately the liability on them... depend on the child.
A man with a gun and a woman with a gun are on fairly equal footing, far more so than any other configuration... when everyone has guns physical strength is a much smaller factor and thus an equalizing factor.. ther eis no need to select who gets it and who doesnt.
@freemo @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster
Treading fine lines here... What amounts to one's right to defend?
We would need reconsider the ethics on (now common) use of fire arms to protect wealth, power and property, as these things contradict emancipation and underline privilege.
> We would need reconsider the ethics on (now common) use of fire arms to protect wealth, power and property, as these things contradict emancipation and underline privilege.
I dont even want to touch the tangent of property or wealth protection.. it is a valid but separate issue that we could debate if it should or shouldn't be protected to shoot someone trying to destroy your financial livelihood or not.
> Treading fine lines here... What amounts to one's right to defend?
The logic here is very simple for me actually... If someone is trying to kill someone else, in almost every circumstances.. you will not have a cop near by, you will not have the ability to call 911, you will not have the luxury of waiting the 5 - 20+ minutes for the cop to arrive... Either you survive or die the encounter 99% of the time and there is no system in place, not cops or anything else, that will effectively come to your rescue.
A gun, and other tools to defend yourself with deadly force (the more effective the better) is in those situations the only thing that is likely to prevent your death or rape. Cops at best might find the guy and arrest him after your corpse is long cold, and thats if your lucky... that does you no good as a corpse.
So as long as there is **any** chance, even a single case of violent crime a year. You have a right to own a gun if you beleive you have a right to protection from violence. Anything else is a huge violation of both legal right (in the USA) and natural right (to be free to self defense and free from bodily harm)
@freemo @aschatermees @BenAveling @Elleaster Folx, I don't know what this discussion is about and I frankly don't care, I just wanted to hop in and thank y'all for the consistency and perseverance. Every day for the past 5 or so days I woke up, checked my Mastodon and saw some notification from y'all saying some wild ass stuff in the first sentence about guns, women's rights, other crazy topics that certainly have their final frontier below an Erik Uden post.
This isn't even ironic, I genuinely found it funny. Keep it going, whatever you're doing here.
@freemo
Not ignoring you, but needing to retire for the night now.
@aschatermees No worries, it was a good discussion, I appreciated it. Have a wonderful night.
@freemo @aschatermees @BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster Firearms are a right. Japan's Emperor or whatever got hit with plumbing supplies.
They don't have to be a right to exist. We need more real firearms as the AR-15 and AKM available to the public tarnish the brilliance of their designers.
Perhaps President Biden was right about needing F-15s and nuclear weapons. It looked like he gave a secret sign when saying that.
@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.