I never said the general preservation of human life was what I was discussing. Of course I’d prefer no one die at all.
I’d also prefer immigrants, lgbt+, and others wouldn’t be hunted for who they are.
I clearly highlighted that an at risk group is trying to empower themselves due to the impending risk from actual threats made publicly against them.
Who am I (or you) to tell those folks they are in the wrong to reach for whatever tools they can access? (Be it speech, political action, or indeed self defence)
IM not worried (or therefore the actor in your suggested paranoid imaginings), because I’m not a member of a target group. The trick is I can empathize with their position, and I can recognize that although I’m not in a target group now, I sure could be in the future.
For those reasons I would never get in the way of folks defending themselves, especially when this group is interested in training and safe practices.
The people who “take priority” are those in harm’s way, and we aren’t the ones to tell them how to live right now, there hearing MORE them enough of that as it is
So you are a gun apologist who doesn’t seem to care fifty thousand Americans needlessly die every year. If you do care I guess thoughts and prayers is all you got. Meanwhile no other civilized country has this problem.
Kids get bulletproof backpacks so they won’t get shot in the back. Clearly, by your reasoning we should also be arming these kids.
All this so far is just about gun death as well. Not about the millions of partners who are threatened into staying by gun point. Not about all the people who have lost their loved ones to guns. Not all the maiming and injuries.
I am sure millions of people who live in fear of guns is worth those defense fantasies though. After all, once they are all armed there will be nothing to fear ever again.
You think you get to decide that THIS group doesn’t get to join the rest. The rest are already armed, and of course that’s a good discussion to have (reducing general gun violence.) But no, here’s where you want to argue.
You created a defense fantasy in your head to justify moar guns. That is about it.
Oh, I have lots of ways to reduce gun violence. The problem is your reductionist argument that the only way to ensure equality is to make sure people are killed equally doesn’t allow for it.
I am afraid you lost the argument high ground a long time ago my friend.
Observe, the person demonstrating lgbt+ getting guns is the redline squirms.
Edit this is just like when Reagan stirred up sentiments against lawful black ownership of firearms in California (before he was president). How odd he didn’t raise broad societal concerns the year prior, or the year prior or the year prior
Late edit:
The conclusion is either you chose this thread, and this group to complain about “think of society” topics intentionally, or you are unwittingly aligned with the type of speech rightwing groups use to demonize legal expression of rights and self defence among minority groups. I’m a pessimist so I personally assume the former.
This is not the time/place, or referred to group to be lamenting the state of gun violence in America, unless you do so in bad faith.
Pretty cool suggesting at risk groups should stay vulnerable when their enemies are armed.
Interesting position you’re taking.
General gun violence is unlike targeted political violence against minorities, so things like school shooting and gang violence stats mean nothing.
Comparing to Japan is irrelevant as there isn’t an armed and empowered group publicly discussing hunting at risk folks there.
Pretending you care about human life when a hundred people die everyday from preventable gun violence is an interesting position you have taken.
Imagined political gun violence in your head or actual dead people. Clearly your imagination must take priority.
Oh it is not just Japan of course. But you knew that.
I never said the general preservation of human life was what I was discussing. Of course I’d prefer no one die at all.
I’d also prefer immigrants, lgbt+, and others wouldn’t be hunted for who they are.
I clearly highlighted that an at risk group is trying to empower themselves due to the impending risk from actual threats made publicly against them.
Who am I (or you) to tell those folks they are in the wrong to reach for whatever tools they can access? (Be it speech, political action, or indeed self defence)
IM not worried (or therefore the actor in your suggested paranoid imaginings), because I’m not a member of a target group. The trick is I can empathize with their position, and I can recognize that although I’m not in a target group now, I sure could be in the future.
For those reasons I would never get in the way of folks defending themselves, especially when this group is interested in training and safe practices.
The people who “take priority” are those in harm’s way, and we aren’t the ones to tell them how to live right now, there hearing MORE them enough of that as it is
So you are a gun apologist who doesn’t seem to care fifty thousand Americans needlessly die every year. If you do care I guess thoughts and prayers is all you got. Meanwhile no other civilized country has this problem.
Kids get bulletproof backpacks so they won’t get shot in the back. Clearly, by your reasoning we should also be arming these kids.
All this so far is just about gun death as well. Not about the millions of partners who are threatened into staying by gun point. Not about all the people who have lost their loved ones to guns. Not all the maiming and injuries.
I am sure millions of people who live in fear of guns is worth those defense fantasies though. After all, once they are all armed there will be nothing to fear ever again.
I’ve made my point, you haven’t addressed it.
You think you get to decide that THIS group doesn’t get to join the rest. The rest are already armed, and of course that’s a good discussion to have (reducing general gun violence.) But no, here’s where you want to argue.
🙄
You created a defense fantasy in your head to justify moar guns. That is about it.
Oh, I have lots of ways to reduce gun violence. The problem is your reductionist argument that the only way to ensure equality is to make sure people are killed equally doesn’t allow for it.
I am afraid you lost the argument high ground a long time ago my friend.
Observe, the person demonstrating lgbt+ getting guns is the redline squirms.
Edit this is just like when Reagan stirred up sentiments against lawful black ownership of firearms in California (before he was president). How odd he didn’t raise broad societal concerns the year prior, or the year prior or the year prior
Late edit:
The conclusion is either you chose this thread, and this group to complain about “think of society” topics intentionally, or you are unwittingly aligned with the type of speech rightwing groups use to demonize legal expression of rights and self defence among minority groups. I’m a pessimist so I personally assume the former.
This is not the time/place, or referred to group to be lamenting the state of gun violence in America, unless you do so in bad faith.
Removed by mod
“bounds”
If you’re gonna be bigoted, at least have your ducks in the know