• BombOmOm
    link
    English
    -651 year ago

    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.

    • @SpaceNoodle
      link
      561 year ago

      Wow, he even managed to roll some sexism into that one

      • @aidan
        link
        61 year ago

        How is that sexist? I agree it sounds sexist, but is the content actually sexist?

        • @Cryophilia
          link
          61 year ago

          I mean, we’ve already got our pitchforks out, fuck it

          OP is racist!!

        • @escaped_cruzader
          link
          01 year ago

          It’s not, @SpaceNoodle did a dumb take in an effort to pile on the guy

          • @aidan
            link
            01 year ago

            Noticing that a bit in this thread

        • @postmateDumbass
          link
          -21 year ago

          The decision to gender only the victim is questionable.

          • @Blue_Morpho
            link
            61 year ago

            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.

            • @postmateDumbass
              link
              -11 year ago

              that is not a resonable test in this situation.

              Dont use ‘woman’ as an adjective. No need. Just use dainty/frail vs. burly.

              • @aidan
                link
                41 year ago

                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.

                • @postmateDumbass
                  link
                  -11 year ago

                  IMO introducing gender only to use traditional sex sterotypes to frame the discussion is sexist.

                  • @aidan
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    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.

    • danny801
      link
      English
      49
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • @aidan
        link
        51 year ago

        So the more guns there are the less gun crime

        That is not the claim

          • @aidan
            link
            61 year ago

            A gun allows physically weaker people to defend themselves from physically stronger people

              • @postmateDumbass
                link
                41 year ago

                In the example only the initial victim had a gun, presumably the ‘burliest of asailants’ was using physical strength as their weapon.

              • @aidan
                link
                11 year ago

                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

                • SatansMaggotyCumFart
                  link
                  01 year ago

                  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.

                  • @aidan
                    link
                    31 year ago

                    having a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun works

                    No, it’s that it grants you the opportunity to defend yourself, not that you can.

                    (more guns reducing gun crime)

                    That is not what that means. Nowhere is that claimed. Maybe ask ChatGPT to rephrase it for you.

    • andrew_bidlaw
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        221 year ago

        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.

          • @AA5B
            link
            51 year ago

            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

            • @Cryophilia
              link
              11 year ago

              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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 year ago

          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.

          • @GooseFinger
            link
            21 year ago

            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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        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.

        • @Cryophilia
          link
          31 year ago

          Sounds like a correlation/causation error to me

        • @aidan
          link
          01 year ago

          And having a pilots license makes you more unsafe when you ride on a plane

          • @postmateDumbass
            link
            21 year ago

            That one Alaska pilot had to go and ruin it for everyone.

      • @Blue_Morpho
        link
        31 year ago

        Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.

        You missed the obvious solution:

        You need a sniper covering your position whenever you are in public.

      • @Dead_or_Alive
        link
        -31 year ago

        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?

    • @ItsMeSpez
      link
      151 year ago

      That must be why the homicide rates in the rest of the world are so much higher than the US.

    • Ann Archy
      link
      -21 year ago

      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!