Guns

[email protected]

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"

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

Ok, I'll demonstrate my point by asking you a question. You are attacked. A gun nut is 3 minutes away from you. A cop is 6 minutes away from you. You are, obviously, present at the scene of the attack.

Which of those three people has the greatest capability of protecting you from that attack?

The cop can start protecting you 6 minutes into the attack. The gun nut can protect you 4 minutes into the attack. The only person capable of immediate response is... You.

The arguments in your initial comment only make sense when you are disarmed. When you are not disarmed, your arguments become nonsensical: you are no longer a helpless prisoner or a victim, subject to the whims of abusers and attackers.

I do not accept the premise of "helpless victimhood" required by your argument. If you want to make the same conclusions, support them with a reasonable premise.

And while I certainly don't expect you to believe me, I feel obligated at this time to deny your claims of AI intercession.

[email protected]

As I said before, you didn't like what I said so you hyper focused on a statement (that was based on satire and then took it literally). You constructed a false premise that we were discussing this made up argument of yours. We were not.

Now you want to LARP defense scenarios like that is something normal people do. Sorry but you never responded to anything I actually said.

You used some AI to write some very confusing stuff and now you want to try and save face. That about sums it up. Have a good day.

[email protected]

I fully addressed your initial point by undermining its fundamental premise: You repeatedly came back to the idea of being "prisoners" of another to support the idea that the general populace should be disarmed.

I suggested the possibility of alternate roots upon which you could graft your conclusions, but you have not elected to explore that option. Instead, you have ignored or dismissed the idea that the individual be empowered, rather than subjugated.

If your arguments only work when we are oppressed, the world you would build for us will always require oppression.

[email protected]

How do they extinguish threats?

Seriously this is the same bullshit “the civil war was about states’ rights” argue.

[email protected]

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?

[email protected]

I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats.

[email protected]

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.

Likewise, it is immoral and unethical to count the death of an attacker as a "killing", at least as far as denouncing the tool used to cause their death.

[email protected]

“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.

Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you. And no I did not read a word after “no.” Why waste more time?

[email protected]

Thank you for leaving me the last word in this discussion.

In future discussions, I suggest you remember the moral and ethical ramifications of conflating justifiable and non-justifiable killings.

[email protected]

In this case OP used prisoner metaphorically to mean they would be oppressed by not having guns. OP confirms this with their gun grabber statement. E.g. Guns=freedom. This is of course silly nonsense.

In our society over 1 million people have died by gun violence in the last 20 years including over a thousand children every year. In Japan, for instance, zero children died from gun violence this year.

I pointed out the real metaphorical prisoners were our society who have to live under the constant threat of gun violence. Having grown up poor the constant gun shots in the neighborhood became normal. Like a bird chirping or dog barking only someone was dead.

Your nonsense about being your own best defense has nothing to do with anything that was discussed. It was truly a strange tangent, one that you seem to be unwilling to forget.

So if you would like to join the conversation stop using AI and start paying attention to what is actually said and not just what you want to hear.

So to sum it up, you did not address anything other than to show you didn't get it. Need I remind you the original post was satire making fun gunsexuals. OP took it as an opportunity to spread some garbage propaganda.

You see to be very confused about what is oppression. I studied oppression theory at Uni so my understanding is probably drastically different than yours. This just highlights the vast differences in understanding that we face when communicating on the Internet.

[email protected]

Having grown up poor

I doubt you realized it when you wrote that, but you specifically identified the actual problem. Poverty. The injustice of our economic model. The victims of that problem are two orders of magnitude greater than anything guns have ever caused.

Your nonsense about being your own best defense has nothing to do with anything that was discussed.

It does, actually. I'm not actually speaking about defending yourself. I'm talking about your mindset. I'm talking about the philosophical model required for your arguments to make sense.

It was truly a strange tangent,

From the mindset of a professional victim, yes, I can see how that would seem strange. Clearly, I don't share your mindset. I can only assume you lack the imagination or optimism to consider a mindset of empowerment, which is apparently tangent to your current philosophy.

[email protected]

You got it Sherlock, it is poverty and easy access to guns that causes a large part of the issue. Then you go derpy again.

You have no fucking clue of my mindset. That is some pretty good straw man your constructing this whole time.

Why don't I start imagining your mindset? Oh wait we already know, LARPing defense scenarios.

Professional victim!? Good Lord you are one of those right wing incel fucks or you just talk like them.

Oh no, they may be unarmed like everyone modern society. How bleak and desperate. We should give everyone a gun so it can be fun and colorful.

How many moar guns until we are safe!? We already have more guns than people. Do we need ten times maybe? Don't even bother, it is already clear you might take this seriously.

[email protected]

easy access to guns

Oh no, they may be unarmed like everyone modern society.

Ah, yes. Schrödinger's Glock.

Guns are everywhere, but nobody actually has them. Their existence and prevalence depends on whatever point the hoplophobe is trying to make at any particular moment in time.