Well, using the stereotype is to reinforce their point. It’s a argumentative tactic. Like if someone said “eating greasy McDonald’s or whatever”, they could have just said “eating unhealthy food” but using specific imagery that plays into stereotypes gives a more emotional reaction.
Yeah and we’re not talking about pilots or flying here so I don’t know what your point is.
Their claim is that having a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun works (more guns reducing gun crime), but that facts clearly show that gun control is the way to reduce gun crimes and having a personal defence gun is a liability and increases your risk of being a victim of gun crime.
God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.
The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.
Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren’t a solution but a problem themselves.
People who everyday carry guns, open or concealed, are either paranoid chicken-shit cowards or trigger-happy wannabe vigilante heroes. Neither is a desirable state of mind.
Or women defending themselves from stalkers or absuive exes. Or LGBTQ people defending themselves from much, much higher rates of assault than average. I know it’s easy to get sucked into the us-vs-them mentality, but please remember there are plenty of people out there who have damn good reasons to carry.
Sir, this is Lemmy. All we do here is call gun owners small-wienered piss baby cowards. Nuanced discussion is allowed for everything else, but the moment you imply that guns aren’t evil machines only used for crime, you’re a brain dead Christian devout who gets off to school shootings and cowboy fantasies.
While I don’t blame them and it’s the last group I’d go after, the contention still holds true: a frightened untrained person with a deadly weapon is more likely to cause another problem than to solve the first one
Gun supporter here: you make a very good point and it’s why I think people should have to go through extensive training before being allowed to own one. Way more so than for a drivers license.
It’s not even just guns, in the UK people who carry knives around are more likely to be stabbed than people who don’t carry them. That’s why there are so many laws about when you’re allowed to have one with you even if you need it for work.
Makes perfect sense. Pass laws forcing law abiding citizens to go unarmed while criminals who don’t abide by those same laws can freely ignore them and continue to use firearms on their law abiding victims. Make sure you include some carve outs so politicians and elites can carry or have access to firearms in case the poors get uppity and BOOM problem solved!
Ho ho, buddy! I don’t agree, but I won’t keep kicking ya. The mob has spoken. In this particular instance, they’re right. But don’t take it personally, it could be any one of us tomorrow!
They are also damn helpful for defending life. A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of women on an equal field with the burliest of asailants.
Wow, he even managed to roll some sexism into that one
How is that sexist? I agree it sounds sexist, but is the content actually sexist?
I mean, we’ve already got our pitchforks out, fuck it
OP is racist!!
It’s not, @SpaceNoodle did a dumb take in an effort to pile on the guy
Noticing that a bit in this thread
The decision to gender only the victim is questionable.
The argument doesn’t sound as convincing this way:
A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of assailants on an equal field with the burliest of women.
that is not a resonable test in this situation.
Dont use ‘woman’ as an adjective. No need. Just use dainty/frail vs. burly.
Okay, but they did. I see how it sounds sexist, but how is it actually sexist? Dainty women do exist, and are on average, more dainty than dainty men.
IMO introducing gender only to use traditional sex sterotypes to frame the discussion is sexist.
Well, using the stereotype is to reinforce their point. It’s a argumentative tactic. Like if someone said “eating greasy McDonald’s or whatever”, they could have just said “eating unhealthy food” but using specific imagery that plays into stereotypes gives a more emotional reaction.
deleted by creator
So the more guns there are the less gun crime, right?
That is not the claim
What is the claim of then?
A gun allows physically weaker people to defend themselves from physically stronger people
That’s what I said.
Their claim is more guns reduce gun crime.
No it is not, you are saying two completely different things.
Does having a pilots livense reduce your likelihood of dying in plane crash?
Vs
Does having a pilots license give you the ability to be responsible for your own safety in plane?
Two completely different things
Yeah and we’re not talking about pilots or flying here so I don’t know what your point is.
Their claim is that having a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun works (more guns reducing gun crime), but that facts clearly show that gun control is the way to reduce gun crimes and having a personal defence gun is a liability and increases your risk of being a victim of gun crime.
No, it’s that it grants you the opportunity to defend yourself, not that you can.
That is not what that means. Nowhere is that claimed. Maybe ask ChatGPT to rephrase it for you.
In the example only the initial victim had a gun, presumably the ‘burliest of asailants’ was using physical strength as their weapon.
God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.
The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.
Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren’t a solution but a problem themselves.
People who everyday carry guns, open or concealed, are either paranoid chicken-shit cowards or trigger-happy wannabe vigilante heroes. Neither is a desirable state of mind.
Or women defending themselves from stalkers or absuive exes. Or LGBTQ people defending themselves from much, much higher rates of assault than average. I know it’s easy to get sucked into the us-vs-them mentality, but please remember there are plenty of people out there who have damn good reasons to carry.
Sir, this is Lemmy. All we do here is call gun owners small-wienered piss baby cowards. Nuanced discussion is allowed for everything else, but the moment you imply that guns aren’t evil machines only used for crime, you’re a brain dead Christian devout who gets off to school shootings and cowboy fantasies.
There is an increasing portion of the LGBT+ community who concealed carry. I don’t blame them, given the current political climate.
While I don’t blame them and it’s the last group I’d go after, the contention still holds true: a frightened untrained person with a deadly weapon is more likely to cause another problem than to solve the first one
Gun supporter here: you make a very good point and it’s why I think people should have to go through extensive training before being allowed to own one. Way more so than for a drivers license.
It’s not even just guns, in the UK people who carry knives around are more likely to be stabbed than people who don’t carry them. That’s why there are so many laws about when you’re allowed to have one with you even if you need it for work.
And having a pilots license makes you more unsafe when you ride on a plane
That one Alaska pilot had to go and ruin it for everyone.
Sounds like a correlation/causation error to me
Makes perfect sense. Pass laws forcing law abiding citizens to go unarmed while criminals who don’t abide by those same laws can freely ignore them and continue to use firearms on their law abiding victims. Make sure you include some carve outs so politicians and elites can carry or have access to firearms in case the poors get uppity and BOOM problem solved!
Brilliant, did you think that up all by yourself?
Do you know how the last japanese PM died?
A good guy with a gun, iirc.
Literally
Get fucked, Shinzo Abe’s racist and sexist ghost, I know you’re reading this.
Without concealed carrying a firearm? /s
You missed the obvious solution:
You need a sniper covering your position whenever you are in public.
And every sniper has a sniper covering their back.
That must be why the homicide rates in the rest of the world are so much higher than the US.
Ho ho, buddy! I don’t agree, but I won’t keep kicking ya. The mob has spoken. In this particular instance, they’re right. But don’t take it personally, it could be any one of us tomorrow!
💀