5 ms·

Who would have thought that people with guns are less likely to be brutalized by the gov or literally anyone. Almost sounds like a pro-gun argument to me but I'

by noxer 6y ago

Who would have thought that people with guns are less likely to be brutalized by the gov or literally anyone. Almost sounds like a pro-gun argument to me but I'm sure it wasn't mean to be one. The victims must be victims because the evils are evil right. That their own actions or inactions makes them the victim just doesn't fit the victim mentality of some. Its just one of many things that shows how they are so out of touch with reality. Did no one ever told these leftist that life isn't fair, that people dont play by the rules, that having right doesn't mean you also get it? We should strive for the perfect world but it will never exist and only a fool would walk the earth as if it where paradise already.

Dylan16807 6y ago
Wow, you're awful. When someone is brutalized by another human because they don't have a gun, of course that's because people are being evil! How dare you say they made themselves a victim?
- noxer 6y ago
  Not what I said. There is a right to bear arms in the US. Its specifically there to prevent the gov form getting to powerful and abuse its power. The people who decide on their own free will that guns should be removed form the people put themself and others in the victim position. If you get brutalized by anyone and you voluntary dont want to defend yourself that Is victim mentality. If you CANT defense yourself (for whatever reason) that's a different situation.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    You said if they were brutalized by "literally anyone". And trying to do self defense with a gun is a terrible idea in most circumstances. (Though trying to fight government abuse with a gun is also a terrible idea.) Deciding not to carry around a gun is very different from deciding not to defend yourself. It's not victim mentality.
    - noxer 6y ago
      No, thats not what I said. Your misinterpretation starts at the very first sentence. I said "people with guns are less likely to be brutalized by the gov or literally anyone." >And trying to do self defense with a gun is a terrible idea in most circumstances. statistics say otherwise also statistics cant even capture the self defenses that weren't needed because someone had a gun and could have used it if needed. >(Though trying to fight government abuse with a gun is also a terrible idea.) trying to fighting against anyone isn't self defense. no where did I say anything the like you just made that up. >Deciding not to carry around a gun is very different from deciding not to defend yourself. It's not victim mentality. You are seem unable to completely read and understand my post. You cant just pick one part and ignore the rest. I clear said that if you cant defend yourself its not the same as if you voluntary dont want to. There are many valid reasons why you would not carry a gun and so if you dont have one you obliviously cant us it. Not the same as if you want to have guns removed from anyone so people no longer have a choice.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > No, thats not what I said. Your misinterpretation starts at the very first sentence. I said "people with guns are less likely to be brutalized by the gov or literally anyone." I'm not sure what the 'no' refers to? Your original post said "the gov or literally anyone". Your second post only talked about the gov part, so I reminded you about the "literally anyone" part. Where's the misinterpretation? > trying to fighting against anyone isn't self defense. no where did I say anything the like you just made that up. Let me rephrase. Self defense against the government with a gun is a terrible idea. > You are seem unable to completely read and understand my post. You cant just pick one part and ignore the rest. I clear said that if you cant defend yourself its not the same as if you voluntary dont want to. You did say that. You also equated choosing not to carry a gun with choosing not to defend yourself, with the phrases "Who would have thought that people with guns are less likely to be brutalized by the gov or literally anyone." and "their own actions or inactions makes them the victim" Are you telling me you didn't mean to equate those? If so then your original post was written misleadingly, and I don't even know who you're even accusing of victim mentality anymore. If you did mean to equate those, then I still think your opinion is hot garbage.

by noxer 6y ago

Dylan16807 6y ago

Wow, you're awful. When someone is brutalized by another human because they don't have a gun, of course that's because people are being evil! How dare you say they made themselves a victim?

noxer 6y ago
Not what I said. There is a right to bear arms in the US. Its specifically there to prevent the gov form getting to powerful and abuse its power. The people who decide on their own free will that guns should be removed form the people put themself and others in the victim position. If you get brutalized by anyone and you voluntary dont want to defend yourself that Is victim mentality. If you CANT defense yourself (for whatever reason) that's a different situation.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You said if they were brutalized by "literally anyone". And trying to do self defense with a gun is a terrible idea in most circumstances. (Though trying to fight government abuse with a gun is also a terrible idea.) Deciding not to carry around a gun is very different from deciding not to defend yourself. It's not victim mentality.
  - noxer 6y ago
    No, thats not what I said. Your misinterpretation starts at the very first sentence. I said "people with guns are less likely to be brutalized by the gov or literally anyone." >And trying to do self defense with a gun is a terrible idea in most circumstances. statistics say otherwise also statistics cant even capture the self defenses that weren't needed because someone had a gun and could have used it if needed. >(Though trying to fight government abuse with a gun is also a terrible idea.) trying to fighting against anyone isn't self defense. no where did I say anything the like you just made that up. >Deciding not to carry around a gun is very different from deciding not to defend yourself. It's not victim mentality. You are seem unable to completely read and understand my post. You cant just pick one part and ignore the rest. I clear said that if you cant defend yourself its not the same as if you voluntary dont want to. There are many valid reasons why you would not carry a gun and so if you dont have one you obliviously cant us it. Not the same as if you want to have guns removed from anyone so people no longer have a choice.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > No, thats not what I said. Your misinterpretation starts at the very first sentence. I said "people with guns are less likely to be brutalized by the gov or literally anyone." I'm not sure what the 'no' refers to? Your original post said "the gov or literally anyone". Your second post only talked about the gov part, so I reminded you about the "literally anyone" part. Where's the misinterpretation? > trying to fighting against anyone isn't self defense. no where did I say anything the like you just made that up. Let me rephrase. Self defense against the government with a gun is a terrible idea. > You are seem unable to completely read and understand my post. You cant just pick one part and ignore the rest. I clear said that if you cant defend yourself its not the same as if you voluntary dont want to. You did say that. You also equated choosing not to carry a gun with choosing not to defend yourself, with the phrases "Who would have thought that people with guns are less likely to be brutalized by the gov or literally anyone." and "their own actions or inactions makes them the victim" Are you telling me you didn't mean to equate those? If so then your original post was written misleadingly, and I don't even know who you're even accusing of victim mentality anymore. If you did mean to equate those, then I still think your opinion is hot garbage.