Guns
-
arcaneslime@lemmy.dbzer0.comreplied to doomsider@lemmy.world last edited by
Says the guy who rails against basic safety principles? As if, lmao.
-
doomsider@lemmy.worldreplied to arcaneslime@lemmy.dbzer0.com last edited by
Keep making stuff up, clown shoes are looking good on you. Did you want some white foundation and a wig to complete the look?
-
Yeah you did
-
doomsider@lemmy.worldreplied to senal@programming.dev last edited by
Yeah, I cringe whenever I hear about the murderous left. Propaganda is one hell of a drug.
-
Pavel Chichikovreplied to doomsider@lemmy.world last edited by
*honk honk
-
you probably didn't even refute my points anyways. just not worth it.
-
arcaneslime@lemmy.dbzer0.comreplied to doomsider@lemmy.world last edited by
You literally said it yourself bud, you don't believe in using flashlights so you don't shoot someone innocent, because you're "real alpha men up in alaska, ooooooo." You literally used patriarchal toxic masculinity to mock basic safety procedures lmao, you have no credibility here.
-
doomsider@lemmy.worldreplied to Pavel Chichikov last edited by
Thanks for that. It really lightens the mood.
-
doomsider@lemmy.worldreplied to arcaneslime@lemmy.dbzer0.com last edited by
Okay, here is your clown nose. You look perfect now.
-
arcaneslime@lemmy.dbzer0.comreplied to doomsider@lemmy.world last edited by
No u lol.
-
auzy@lemmy.worldreplied to doomsider@lemmy.world last edited by
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
-
narauko@lemmy.worldreplied to madison420@lemmy.world last edited by
The US is over-policed, while simultaneously being under-policed for certain demographics, by a street gang operating under the color of law. We have an overabundance of bad shoots by the cops executing people for nonviolent propert crimes that needs to be dealt with. This is a real issue.
There is also a tendency for some to conflate that with self defense of/in a home under the (generally correct) idea that no property crime deserves the death penalty, like McDonalds managed to conflate the coffee burned old lady with frivolous lawsuits. I am saying that once you break into a home it is no longer "property crime" but something else.
-
blind3rdeye@lemm.eereplied to arcaneslime@lemmy.dbzer0.com last edited by
Idk sounds about right to me, 8%-8%. What do you expect, 8% of people carry so 50% of people have a gun on them at any given time? No, more like 8% of people have one at any given time, therefore 8% chance. Your figures seem off to me considering there are none, “nuh uh” isn’t a rebuttal.
I'm saying that if 8% of people carry guns and there are 20 such people at a particular location, then the probability that someone in the group has a gun would be
1-(1-0.08)^20
which is around 80%. For 1 person, it's 8%, for 2 people it's 15%, and so on.But whatever. I can see you are firmly in the camp of 'we need good people with guns to stop bad people with guns' - a view that basically only exists where gun-violence is endemic.
-
arcaneslime@lemmy.dbzer0.comreplied to blind3rdeye@lemm.ee last edited by
Well unfortunately, there's already 600,000,000 with no registry to know where, so those are staying. That puts your options at either protect yourself should you ever have to (hopefully, and likely, you never will) or don't and just hope it all works out. Sure, in countries where there already aren't guns I'm not saying they should get more, but they're here to stay.
And I know that if I were in a mass shooting and had to try and stop the shooter, I'd rather have one than not, idk about you.
-
senal@programming.devreplied to auzy@lemmy.world last edited by
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"
-
rivalarrival@lemmy.todayreplied to landedgentry@lemmy.zip last edited by
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.
-
rivalarrival@lemmy.todayreplied to doomsider@lemmy.world last edited by
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.
-
doomsider@lemmy.worldreplied to rivalarrival@lemmy.today last edited by
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.
-
rivalarrival@lemmy.todayreplied to doomsider@lemmy.world last edited by
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.
-
landedgentry@lemmy.zipreplied to rivalarrival@lemmy.today last edited by
How do they extinguish threats?
Seriously this is the same bullshit “the civil war was about states’ rights” argue.