You would have thought that after January 6th/George Floydd protests, and the lack of justice that followed both, would have finally shown liberals they cannot rely on cops and the “justice” system for personal protection.
My body, my choice to protect it the way i wish. Fuck off gun grabbers. Prisoners are forced to give up all their rights and yet they are still not safe in prison. I refuse to be your prisoner.
Some people think that situations where they can rely on others’ strength are normal.
Thus they may agree with need for weapons and self-defense, because “it’s a dangerous time”, but not when everything is in order again. Not even thinking that said “dangerous time” somehow happened and will happen again.
Guns are similar to fire extinguishers and defibrillators in that most of time they are not needed.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
The reality is that the attacker forfeits their right to life for the duration of their attack: the life saved holds greater legal, moral, and ethical value than the life wasted on the attacker.
Guns are meant to extinguish threats, not lives. They do, indeed, save lives.
The most common way they extinguish a threat is by convincing the attacker to fuck off with great rapidity, when they realize their intended victim is capable of returning harm. This “fucking off” saves the life of the intended victim.
But I suspect you’re referring to the taking of the attacker’s forfeited life, which extinguishes the threat posed by that attacker, saving the life of the victim.
You do realize that the law does not criminalize “justifiable homicide”, right? You do realize the amorality of counting a “justifiable homicide” as the “taking of a life”? You do realize the deceit required to conflate criminal and justifiable homicide, right?
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats. I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
A gun solves a problem by killing it. You’re purposely dodging this obvious truth with word salads and faux-technical sounding bullshit.
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats.
No.
While certainly true, I don’t need that fact to be true to demonstrate the more important point. I elect not to support that point. For this discussion, you are free to consider that a concession.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
This was the first line of my initial response to you. There is no moral or ethical dilemma with using deadly force to stop a deadly attack.
I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
You’ve got it backwards. The law on justifiable homicide arises from moral and ethical grounds: It is morally and ethically permissible to use deadly force against an attacker. It is not morally or ethically permissible to punish a victim for killing their attacker. Those two points demand a narrow exception to the general rule that “killing is wrong”. The laws on self defense and justifiable homicide reflect the morality and ethicality of using deadly force on an attacker.
Likewise, it is immoral and unethical to count the death of an attacker as a “killing”, at least for purposes of denouncing the use of the tool used to cause their death. Conflating the deaths of attackers with the deaths of victims is deceitful, immoral and unethical.
“No”? Then kindly fuck off. I have no desire to waste my time having a discussion with somebody who refuses to back their claims with evidence like some right wing tinfoil hat election denier. And no I did not read a word after “no.” Why waste more time?
Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you
Yes, they are. It’s like demolishing dangerous construction. Guns to extinguish lives on firm trajectory to extinguishing yours are part of just guns to extinguish lives. When you solve this human problem with some technology or philosophy smart thing, let me know.
I agree. I would much rather rely on myself for protection. Forget trusting the cops, I don’t trust the prosecutors. There are so many liberal prosecutors who are just drop cases, and judges who set low bail, or refuse to impose certain sentence types on repeat offenders, etc. People who want to take away guns are retards.
I don’t think that question is as simple as you think. Peaceful protest is much more likely to garner public support, at least until things are critical. And taking weapons to a protest in the US seems like an almost guaranteed way to die, one way or another. Not saying the cops are well trained with weapons, but neither are the general public.
It’s the entire argument in a nutshell yes. A common-sense response to those desires is what separates the countries that don’t have much gun crime from yours.
There are all kinds of discussions we can have about this, not the least of which is that “no guns” simply isn’t an option in a country with 500 million firearms and no central firearm registry.
But, really, all that stuff is beside the point. Guns are the ultimate equalizer. They equalize the weak and the strong. An 80 year old grandma can defend herself against a 25 year old man using a gun. A suppressed populace can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using guns.
Gun crime has negligible impact on most Americans; we have about half as many firearm homicides as traffic deaths annually.
Philosophically, the gun community feels having that equalizer and balance against tyranny is more important than the impacts of gun crime. Whether or not more gun control will decrease gun crime is irrelevant if a person feels that free firearm access is the more important of the two issues.
Btw, regardless of your views, if you come to the US you should shoot some guns. It’s fun and you’ll be glad you did.
Wow, so we have too many guns so no reason to regulate has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. It is like common sense showed up to have you shart in their face
Guns are the ultimate equalizer sounds like something a weak assed little Nazi would say. Why does every other modern civilized country not need them then? It is like you look at the worst case and say it is now the best case
I could give a shit about the feels of gun nutters. To think we have to appease homicidal radicals is fucking bonkers.
I think most people will pass on the shooting thing. There is a lot more to the USA than a bunch of gun waving lunatics.
We have not only more guns in circulation than people, but a constitutional right to those guns that you would have to overcome to remove them all.
I never expected to see a “those who disagree with me are actual Nazis” in the wild, used apparently straight faced. Godwin’s law kicked in very quickly.
I was more pointing out that there are legal and constitutional hurdles beyond the number of guns, the later of which you are hand waving away under a “the second best time is now” argument and ignoring the former. Especially with the current Supreme Court, we have at least 4 years before further gun control legislation attempts can be made. State and county guns bans and control laws are being struck down as unconstitutional left and right.
I am pro private gun ownership personally and believe in a legal right to self defense, but am not even talking about that. You are vigorously arguing for a pipe dream of seemingly “just make guns illegal, it will work out from there”, in the current political climate, while calling people with different opinions Nazis. All those blank steps before Profit are doing some very heavy lifting.
honestly it is the only way they can throw off the bourgeoisie. people who want to deprive the proletariat of guns are class traitors or posers from the bourgeoisie.
I have traveled most of the country and 95% of Americans are normal people who just want the best for the people around them. They just have different perspectives on what that means.
You should let your hate go, my friend. I promise you’ll be happier for it.
This made me laugh. You sound like Philomena Cunk!
Surely, all that needs to happen is that everyone needs to carry bottles of acid. It will be completely safe in the hands of well-trained acid handlers, and accidents will only happen to people who weren’t trained well enough! This means you wouldn’t even need to regulate it!
How about you just give them guns so they can shoot the acid attackers. Turns out, you don’t need much training with a gun. Point shoot. Very simple. Point shoot. School shooters figure it out just fine.
There are plenty of convenient and easy ways for harming each other outside of guns (France circa 2016). The same goes for suicide. So banning guns doesn’t actually make it “harder” for people to harm one another, esp. when you can just drive a truck through a crowd.
Gun control doesn’t work anyways (Winnenden School Shooting, Jokela School Shooting Finland, 2007, Alphen aan den Rijn Shopping Mall Shooting in Netherlands, 2011, etc. etc.).
Guns save more productive civilian lives than the the criminal lives they take, and people like you purposefully ignore this fact. In trying to save a few hundred or maybe thousand lives from gun violence (most of which are violent criminals themselves), you people are willing to deprive millions of innocent hard working people the ability to defend themselves. You know nothing.
Even if all of this was false, the ability to resist tyranny is more valuable than the lives lost to gun-crime.
How about instead of low-IQ hamfisted moves such as taking away guns, you people look at policies that would address the root causes of crime like broken families, poverty, mental illness, homelessness, and cultural malaise? You don’t. Because you’re lazy. And THAT is why you want to get rid of guns. Because you don’t care enough about the people to invest some effort in actually solving all the related problems that lead people to use guns in the first place.
these people are such idiots. besides, the founding fathers didn’t exclusively intend the second amendment to be used against petty thieves or violent criminals… they wanted it to be used to resist tyranny in all its forms. One form of tyranny is prosecutors dropping violent felons cases, judges setting low bail on repeat violent offenders, and federal governments throwing the borders open and granting special protection to violent criminals that come across the border. The government at best can punish crime, but it can never defend us. I am more than willing to accept school shootings if it means I can shoot someone that I deem a threat if necessary.
You are seriously arguing that the corruption in our police system means there is no protection? This is objectively false.
I would trust an officer over Ultragagginggunnut any day of the week.
The only prisoners are our school children who have to drill for gun violence in their school. Kids who live in fear that their classmates will kill them because they brought another gun nutters unsecured gun to school.
The prisoners are the wives and partners of every abusive gun owner. Scared to leave because they know that it could cost their lives. You ever been raped at gun point? Yeah, didn’t think so.
The prisoners are our society that has to deal with the commercialization of gun ownership and the radicalization of the NRA. Everyday they make our society more unsafe in the name of profits.
The problem isn’t guns, it is people like you that think they solve problems. Guns create problems not solve them.
They need to be tightly controlled to keep them away from people who are mentally unwell. People that think they are the “prisoners” fantasizing about defending their rights and overthrowing the government.
Like anyone who grew up poor you know not to trust anyone including officers. I have called 911 on guys beating their girlfriends. I have had an officer pull their gun on me for no reason. I have lived in big cities, small, and rural so I know a thing or two.
Yep… Whats crazy, is that literally a few months ago, everyone was pointing out how weird the nutters on the right wing are. And how rediculous the gun nuts are
Now, somehow, there seems to have been some kind of concerted campaign that have made a lot of these people start to act exactly like the extreme right, where shooting seemingly anyone you don’t like is apparently “ok”. But at least a lot of those guys tied them to random conspiracy theories, whereas, what I’m seeing suddenly by some people on the left, is basically just blatant wanting to kill certain people
“And here we see a wild false equivalency in it’s natural habitat. Camouflaged and perfectly suited to it’s environment, it goes unnoticed by many”
“Some humans have started recording the mating calls of this and other closely related cousins in the misinformationum ridiculosus family in hope of harnessing the power of the sounds for themselves, results have been varied”
I am a left winger. I’ve voted for the greens since I started voting
And sorry, but America is full of crazies who are just calling for violence now.
The right wing is calling for murdering random people like fauci, whereas a lot of people from the left seem to be happy CEO’s are getting shot and encouraging it
It’s totally fucked. And yes, even Reddit is doing a better job moderating it at the moment.
Nobody should be encouraging murder. Has this actually improved the health care at United? No. They’ll just replace the CEO and get more body guards
But, if you encourage the development of laws, that might have an impact. Or it would have, until you guys voted for Trump
Being left or right doesn’t change what a false equivalency is neither does describing each side in more detail.
This is
“I’m a left winger, the smooth mostly round seeded fruit that shares a name with the color orange is in fact the same as the road vehicle with four wheels, commonly used for transportation of goods that we normally call a car or ‘automobile’ in the old days”
I mean, I can list the false equivalencies if you like?
To clarify im not saying the point I think you’re trying to make is incorrect (though I do disagree with it), I’m saying you’re doing a bad job of making it.
If you are going to try and put forth or defend a position don’t do it with faulty logic and/or fallacies.
Well gun supporters have been at war with the truth for a long time. People I call gun nutters have an unhealthy obsession with guns. They keep them unsecured and loaded and like to fantasize about killing people in “self defense”.
America’s obsession with guns definitely cuts both ways but when you compare the left and right wing 95% of attacks come from the right. It is an unfortunate reality but the people who we can least trust are the ones who are the most for guns.
Really though this is a problem of regulation. Commercial interests have manipulated people into buying tools they don’t need which are misused and cause untold suffering.
In other countries this is normal. Including here in Australia
Maybe you need to rethink some things and get some perspective from countries where we don’t have regular mass shootings. Our kids don’t need to do training for school shootings
What you’re doing clearly isn’t working
That’s also why we didn’t get people trying to overthrow our Capitol
It’s absolutely ridiculous at this point for an American to be giving any advice about guns
Certainly. Thank you for your patience, and for the opportunity for discussion.
I respectfully and summarily reject the underlying premise of what you were saying. Your comment did not consider that you are the person best capable of providing your own “protection”.
I submit that the regulatory environment needs to recognize and respect that fact.
What are you waiting for? I have responded twice before this comment. Your comment is premised on a false dichotomy. When we eliminate that premise, the remainder of your comment doesn’t make much sense.
One route forward: You could support your position on a different premise. Another route: You could abandon your previous position and adopt a new one. I eagerly await your choice.
Nice try, let me turn on my Rivalarrival translator: Ah yes, it is coming in clear now. You did not like what I said but you have no rebuttal so you hyper focused on one thing. You invented a false premise and remembered to project that like any good bullshitter.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but none of what you’re saying in any way addresses my point: your argument is fundamentally based on the aforementioned false dichotomy. You are the most reliable protector of you. Nobody has a greater motivation to protect you than you. Regulation should recognize that fact.
I understand it may seem like I am “hyper focused” on this rebuttal to your argument, but that is only because you have asked for further response, without actually addressing my initial argument. You’ve presented no new arguments for me to consider.
You would have thought that after January 6th/George Floydd protests, and the lack of justice that followed both, would have finally shown liberals they cannot rely on cops and the “justice” system for personal protection.
Warren vs district of Columbia
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
Uvalde school shooting
Yet here we are.
My body, my choice to protect it the way i wish. Fuck off gun grabbers. Prisoners are forced to give up all their rights and yet they are still not safe in prison. I refuse to be your prisoner.
SocialistRA.org
Some people think that situations where they can rely on others’ strength are normal.
Thus they may agree with need for weapons and self-defense, because “it’s a dangerous time”, but not when everything is in order again. Not even thinking that said “dangerous time” somehow happened and will happen again.
Guns are similar to fire extinguishers and defibrillators in that most of time they are not needed.
Guns are meant to extinguish lives. The others are meant to save them.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
The reality is that the attacker forfeits their right to life for the duration of their attack: the life saved holds greater legal, moral, and ethical value than the life wasted on the attacker.
Guns are meant to extinguish threats, not lives. They do, indeed, save lives.
How do they extinguish threats?
Seriously this is the same bullshit “the civil war was about states’ rights” argue.
The most common way they extinguish a threat is by convincing the attacker to fuck off with great rapidity, when they realize their intended victim is capable of returning harm. This “fucking off” saves the life of the intended victim.
But I suspect you’re referring to the taking of the attacker’s forfeited life, which extinguishes the threat posed by that attacker, saving the life of the victim.
You do realize that the law does not criminalize “justifiable homicide”, right? You do realize the amorality of counting a “justifiable homicide” as the “taking of a life”? You do realize the deceit required to conflate criminal and justifiable homicide, right?
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats. I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
A gun solves a problem by killing it. You’re purposely dodging this obvious truth with word salads and faux-technical sounding bullshit.
No.
While certainly true, I don’t need that fact to be true to demonstrate the more important point. I elect not to support that point. For this discussion, you are free to consider that a concession.
This was the first line of my initial response to you. There is no moral or ethical dilemma with using deadly force to stop a deadly attack.
You’ve got it backwards. The law on justifiable homicide arises from moral and ethical grounds: It is morally and ethically permissible to use deadly force against an attacker. It is not morally or ethically permissible to punish a victim for killing their attacker. Those two points demand a narrow exception to the general rule that “killing is wrong”. The laws on self defense and justifiable homicide reflect the morality and ethicality of using deadly force on an attacker.
Likewise, it is immoral and unethical to count the death of an attacker as a “killing”, at least for purposes of denouncing the use of the tool used to cause their death. Conflating the deaths of attackers with the deaths of victims is deceitful, immoral and unethical.
“No”? Then kindly fuck off. I have no desire to waste my time having a discussion with somebody who refuses to back their claims with evidence like some right wing tinfoil hat election denier. And no I did not read a word after “no.” Why waste more time?
Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you
Yes, they are. It’s like demolishing dangerous construction. Guns to extinguish lives on firm trajectory to extinguishing yours are part of just guns to extinguish lives. When you solve this human problem with some technology or philosophy smart thing, let me know.
I agree. I would much rather rely on myself for protection. Forget trusting the cops, I don’t trust the prosecutors. There are so many liberal prosecutors who are just drop cases, and judges who set low bail, or refuse to impose certain sentence types on repeat offenders, etc. People who want to take away guns are retards.
How would guns have helped in the George Floyd case?
Is this a serious question?
Do you believe armed protesters are easier or more difficult to suppress?
I don’t think that question is as simple as you think. Peaceful protest is much more likely to garner public support, at least until things are critical. And taking weapons to a protest in the US seems like an almost guaranteed way to die, one way or another. Not saying the cops are well trained with weapons, but neither are the general public.
there is a point where peaceful protest is not enough, you realize that, right?
The BLM protestors who marched with guns in Georgia didn’t get fucked with by the cops at all, because the cops were scared. Look it up.
Other BLM protestors got beat down by cops in riot gear, in countless examples across the country (when the protestors were unarmed).
More protesters would have been shot. The movement would have been demonized even more than it was.
The protests were already overwhelming peaceful. To re-envision history saying “moars guns” would have helped is pretty bizarre gun nutters nonsense.
I choose to protect my body by you not having guns.
Edit: I don’t, but I think you can see the error in your argument now.
I’m sure this sounded convincing in your head.
It’s the entire argument in a nutshell yes. A common-sense response to those desires is what separates the countries that don’t have much gun crime from yours.
There are all kinds of discussions we can have about this, not the least of which is that “no guns” simply isn’t an option in a country with 500 million firearms and no central firearm registry.
But, really, all that stuff is beside the point. Guns are the ultimate equalizer. They equalize the weak and the strong. An 80 year old grandma can defend herself against a 25 year old man using a gun. A suppressed populace can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using guns.
Gun crime has negligible impact on most Americans; we have about half as many firearm homicides as traffic deaths annually.
Philosophically, the gun community feels having that equalizer and balance against tyranny is more important than the impacts of gun crime. Whether or not more gun control will decrease gun crime is irrelevant if a person feels that free firearm access is the more important of the two issues.
Btw, regardless of your views, if you come to the US you should shoot some guns. It’s fun and you’ll be glad you did.
preach! This! couldn’t have said it better myself.
Wow, so we have too many guns so no reason to regulate has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. It is like common sense showed up to have you shart in their face
Guns are the ultimate equalizer sounds like something a weak assed little Nazi would say. Why does every other modern civilized country not need them then? It is like you look at the worst case and say it is now the best case
I could give a shit about the feels of gun nutters. To think we have to appease homicidal radicals is fucking bonkers.
I think most people will pass on the shooting thing. There is a lot more to the USA than a bunch of gun waving lunatics.
We have not only more guns in circulation than people, but a constitutional right to those guns that you would have to overcome to remove them all.
I never expected to see a “those who disagree with me are actual Nazis” in the wild, used apparently straight faced. Godwin’s law kicked in very quickly.
Proud of being dumb I guess. Hur dur we got most guns than anyone and a million deaths over the last twenty years to prove it. Aww shucks.
I never expected to see so many gun apologist bootlickers. Better run cause the gun grabbers are cumin fer yah.
I was more pointing out that there are legal and constitutional hurdles beyond the number of guns, the later of which you are hand waving away under a “the second best time is now” argument and ignoring the former. Especially with the current Supreme Court, we have at least 4 years before further gun control legislation attempts can be made. State and county guns bans and control laws are being struck down as unconstitutional left and right.
I am pro private gun ownership personally and believe in a legal right to self defense, but am not even talking about that. You are vigorously arguing for a pipe dream of seemingly “just make guns illegal, it will work out from there”, in the current political climate, while calling people with different opinions Nazis. All those blank steps before Profit are doing some very heavy lifting.
The working class must remain armed.
honestly it is the only way they can throw off the bourgeoisie. people who want to deprive the proletariat of guns are class traitors or posers from the bourgeoisie.
Let’s be honest. You just want to see people die as long as they are the “right” group. Pardon me while I go throw up.
I have traveled most of the country and 95% of Americans are normal people who just want the best for the people around them. They just have different perspectives on what that means.
You should let your hate go, my friend. I promise you’ll be happier for it.
Same and it is clear 95% are not gun nutters.
Reality is a harsh mistress and your gun rhetoric is absolute garbage.
Countries that “don’t have much gun crime” = countries with acid attacks
This made me laugh. You sound like Philomena Cunk!
Surely, all that needs to happen is that everyone needs to carry bottles of acid. It will be completely safe in the hands of well-trained acid handlers, and accidents will only happen to people who weren’t trained well enough! This means you wouldn’t even need to regulate it!
How about you just give them guns so they can shoot the acid attackers. Turns out, you don’t need much training with a gun. Point shoot. Very simple. Point shoot. School shooters figure it out just fine.
I don’t even know where to start.
There will be fewer acid attacks with guns because everyone will have access to a way more convenient and easy way of harming each other, yes.
So…problem solved?
Which side of the argument are you actually on?
How about instead of low-IQ hamfisted moves such as taking away guns, you people look at policies that would address the root causes of crime like broken families, poverty, mental illness, homelessness, and cultural malaise? You don’t. Because you’re lazy. And THAT is why you want to get rid of guns. Because you don’t care enough about the people to invest some effort in actually solving all the related problems that lead people to use guns in the first place.
these people are such idiots. besides, the founding fathers didn’t exclusively intend the second amendment to be used against petty thieves or violent criminals… they wanted it to be used to resist tyranny in all its forms. One form of tyranny is prosecutors dropping violent felons cases, judges setting low bail on repeat violent offenders, and federal governments throwing the borders open and granting special protection to violent criminals that come across the border. The government at best can punish crime, but it can never defend us. I am more than willing to accept school shootings if it means I can shoot someone that I deem a threat if necessary.
You are seriously arguing that the corruption in our police system means there is no protection? This is objectively false.
I would trust an officer over Ultragagginggunnut any day of the week.
The only prisoners are our school children who have to drill for gun violence in their school. Kids who live in fear that their classmates will kill them because they brought another gun nutters unsecured gun to school.
The prisoners are the wives and partners of every abusive gun owner. Scared to leave because they know that it could cost their lives. You ever been raped at gun point? Yeah, didn’t think so.
The prisoners are our society that has to deal with the commercialization of gun ownership and the radicalization of the NRA. Everyday they make our society more unsafe in the name of profits.
The problem isn’t guns, it is people like you that think they solve problems. Guns create problems not solve them.
They need to be tightly controlled to keep them away from people who are mentally unwell. People that think they are the “prisoners” fantasizing about defending their rights and overthrowing the government.
You must be white passing and at least middle class to trust bringing the police into any situation.
Like anyone who grew up poor you know not to trust anyone including officers. I have called 911 on guys beating their girlfriends. I have had an officer pull their gun on me for no reason. I have lived in big cities, small, and rural so I know a thing or two.
I know you got downvoted, but in other countries and anywhere other than lemmy, the US and truth social, this is actually normal
It’s crazy that extremist groups like the NRA have managed to brainwash so many Americans
Oh I know what I was getting into by commenting on their post. I will gladly take downvotes from gun nutters.
I appreciate what you say though because in the US it seems easy to question your sanity at times.
Yep… Whats crazy, is that literally a few months ago, everyone was pointing out how weird the nutters on the right wing are. And how rediculous the gun nuts are
Now, somehow, there seems to have been some kind of concerted campaign that have made a lot of these people start to act exactly like the extreme right, where shooting seemingly anyone you don’t like is apparently “ok”. But at least a lot of those guys tied them to random conspiracy theories, whereas, what I’m seeing suddenly by some people on the left, is basically just blatant wanting to kill certain people
[Attenborough voice]
“And here we see a wild false equivalency in it’s natural habitat. Camouflaged and perfectly suited to it’s environment, it goes unnoticed by many”
“Some humans have started recording the mating calls of this and other closely related cousins in the misinformationum ridiculosus family in hope of harnessing the power of the sounds for themselves, results have been varied”
Yeah, I cringe whenever I hear about the murderous left. Propaganda is one hell of a drug.
I am a left winger. I’ve voted for the greens since I started voting
And sorry, but America is full of crazies who are just calling for violence now.
The right wing is calling for murdering random people like fauci, whereas a lot of people from the left seem to be happy CEO’s are getting shot and encouraging it
It’s totally fucked. And yes, even Reddit is doing a better job moderating it at the moment.
Nobody should be encouraging murder. Has this actually improved the health care at United? No. They’ll just replace the CEO and get more body guards
But, if you encourage the development of laws, that might have an impact. Or it would have, until you guys voted for Trump
Being left or right doesn’t change what a false equivalency is neither does describing each side in more detail.
This is
“I’m a left winger, the smooth mostly round seeded fruit that shares a name with the color orange is in fact the same as the road vehicle with four wheels, commonly used for transportation of goods that we normally call a car or ‘automobile’ in the old days”
I mean, I can list the false equivalencies if you like?
To clarify im not saying the point I think you’re trying to make is incorrect (though I do disagree with it), I’m saying you’re doing a bad job of making it.
If you are going to try and put forth or defend a position don’t do it with faulty logic and/or fallacies.
Well gun supporters have been at war with the truth for a long time. People I call gun nutters have an unhealthy obsession with guns. They keep them unsecured and loaded and like to fantasize about killing people in “self defense”.
America’s obsession with guns definitely cuts both ways but when you compare the left and right wing 95% of attacks come from the right. It is an unfortunate reality but the people who we can least trust are the ones who are the most for guns.
Really though this is a problem of regulation. Commercial interests have manipulated people into buying tools they don’t need which are misused and cause untold suffering.
All of your responses are being downvoted and for good reason. Maybe you need to rethink some things
In other countries this is normal. Including here in Australia
Maybe you need to rethink some things and get some perspective from countries where we don’t have regular mass shootings. Our kids don’t need to do training for school shootings
What you’re doing clearly isn’t working
That’s also why we didn’t get people trying to overthrow our Capitol
It’s absolutely ridiculous at this point for an American to be giving any advice about guns
Rethink that you are another gun apologist? Hard pass on that goober.
False dichotomy. Those aren’t the only choices.
In your entire comment, you failed to realize that “Doomsider” is a perfectly viable option.
With “Doomsider” being an option for you, “officer” should be considered a distant second.
When you actually want to respond to what I said I will be waiting.
Certainly. Thank you for your patience, and for the opportunity for discussion.
I respectfully and summarily reject the underlying premise of what you were saying. Your comment did not consider that you are the person best capable of providing your own “protection”.
I submit that the regulatory environment needs to recognize and respect that fact.
Still waiting
What are you waiting for? I have responded twice before this comment. Your comment is premised on a false dichotomy. When we eliminate that premise, the remainder of your comment doesn’t make much sense.
One route forward: You could support your position on a different premise. Another route: You could abandon your previous position and adopt a new one. I eagerly await your choice.
Nice try, let me turn on my Rivalarrival translator: Ah yes, it is coming in clear now. You did not like what I said but you have no rebuttal so you hyper focused on one thing. You invented a false premise and remembered to project that like any good bullshitter.
Still waiting.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but none of what you’re saying in any way addresses my point: your argument is fundamentally based on the aforementioned false dichotomy. You are the most reliable protector of you. Nobody has a greater motivation to protect you than you. Regulation should recognize that fact.
I understand it may seem like I am “hyper focused” on this rebuttal to your argument, but that is only because you have asked for further response, without actually addressing my initial argument. You’ve presented no new arguments for me to consider.