8 ms·

> Free of endless infringements Woof. America...

by bradhe 5y ago

oneplane 5y ago
Yeah, and the weird part is that somehow it completely misses the point that society might actually want 'infringements' (infringing on what?), and that most of the world doesn't like the idea of making it easy for people to apply violence to other people.
- jakearmitage 5y ago
  What I find weird, and interesting, is that you seem to summarily correlate a weapon with applying violence to someone. Weapons are frequently used in self-defense, specially among minorities and women abused by their partners. Weapons create a balance to an otherwise unfair and cruel power relationship. As a matter of fact, those "infringements" already caused the death of an abused woman: https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/pr20160408a.html https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/pr20160408a.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Carol_Bowne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Carol_Bowne I invite you to broaden your perspective on the concept of gun ownership and the principles behind the 2nd Amendment. Black men and women bought 58% more guns in the first six months of 2020 than they did in 2019. Black women are being empowered all across America, along with another vast diversity of people, by the right to keep and bear arms.
  - bradhe 5y ago
    > Weapons are frequently used in self-defense To be pedantic, you're still applying violence in this case. It's just violence in the response to potential or actual violence.
    - jakearmitage 5y ago
      Touché. I wanted to understand the perspective and show a different one, though, not correct or debate his point. There are other uses which I could have presented to counter that point: sports, rehabilitation, recreation. However, I find that this would deviate from my point of trying to show the diversity of gun owners and the many uses of defensive gun use. Some stats on defensive gun use: https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/ https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g... I do understand that different people from different upbringings, as well as different parts of the world, might have a difficult time seeing how a gun can be seen as a good thing. Which I why I'm trying to present different perspectives.
    - nradov 5y ago
      No that's not how it typically works. In the vast majority of cases where a firearm is used for self defense the weapon is merely brandished and there's no actual violence.
      - bradhe 5y ago
        Split them hairs, man.
        graderjs 5y ago
        In fact I see it as you splitting (or rather melding) the hairs, so if you're going to do that, you should be able to take it, too, right? :) Your point was violence in response to violence, as if the two are interchangeable, but there is a huge difference, both legally, morally and practically I think. One the one side you have, the primary aggressor, the "attacker" and they presumably can have the element of surprise. On the other side you have self defense and (in some places) "stand your ground", where you are "a true victim, defending yourself against an attacker". So you seem to say there's no much difference, but there's a huge difference. In the second case, where you accuse someone of splitting hairs, not only have you already done it (in a reversed way, by making a (as you admit) "pedantic" (but i'd say, incorrect) statement about two types of violence, where you conflate, rather that split, them), the point you are again conflating, "between violence actualized and violence only threatened" is also huge, and something I didn't know. I was grateful to learn that, and it's fascinating. I think that's something about guns that is ignored often in, is that they can be an effective deterrent. The effect of which, actually makes it, possibly that violence is less likely to be effected, perhaps precisely because, major violence is so easily applied. Anyway, aside from all these down in the details stuff (which are important in this topic, the semantics and nuance are key here), I'm sure you have good ideas and thinking for why you are anti-gun. It's not an easy topic for either side to argue, I think.
- mod 5y ago
  > (infringing on what?) In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So the word "infringe" is commonly used in that context. > making it easy for people to apply violence Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons. I'm sure most of us can infer your actual point, but it might be worth it to come up with a less-easily-defeated argument.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IANACS, but to me the 2nd Amendment doesn't objectively imply the right to keep and bear all possible arms, rather it prevents the infringement of the right to bear any arms. You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars. >Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons. Tell that to the Las Vegas shooter, or any mass shooter. There's a reason wars are no longer fought on horseback with melee combat and bows and arrows. The purpose of guns is to force-multiply the capacity of violence (both in power and in range) beyond what an unarmed body can commit. Yes, it's technically easier to apply the violence of a closed fist or a knife but that violence is also more contained and easier to control.
    - jakearmitage 5y ago
      > You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars. Could you elaborate on this? Why not a rifle?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - krapp 5y ago
        I'm hoping to avoid a tedious quagmire about gun classification here. A rifle might be appropriate in some situations, like defending against bears or big cats in a rural environment, but not necessarily an urban setting. An RPG would be inappropriate for both. But my point is that self-defense doesn't require access to arbitrary firepower.

> Free of endless infringements Woof. America...

by bradhe 5y ago

> Free of endless infringements Woof. America...

Yeah, and the weird part is that somehow it completely misses the point that society might actually want 'infringements' (infringing on what?), and that most of the world doesn't like the idea of making it easy for people to apply violence to other people.

jakearmitage 5y ago
What I find weird, and interesting, is that you seem to summarily correlate a weapon with applying violence to someone. Weapons are frequently used in self-defense, specially among minorities and women abused by their partners. Weapons create a balance to an otherwise unfair and cruel power relationship. As a matter of fact, those "infringements" already caused the death of an abused woman: https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/pr20160408a.html https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/pr20160408a.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Carol_Bowne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Carol_Bowne I invite you to broaden your perspective on the concept of gun ownership and the principles behind the 2nd Amendment. Black men and women bought 58% more guns in the first six months of 2020 than they did in 2019. Black women are being empowered all across America, along with another vast diversity of people, by the right to keep and bear arms.
- bradhe 5y ago
  > Weapons are frequently used in self-defense To be pedantic, you're still applying violence in this case. It's just violence in the response to potential or actual violence.
  - jakearmitage 5y ago
    Touché. I wanted to understand the perspective and show a different one, though, not correct or debate his point. There are other uses which I could have presented to counter that point: sports, rehabilitation, recreation. However, I find that this would deviate from my point of trying to show the diversity of gun owners and the many uses of defensive gun use. Some stats on defensive gun use: https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/ https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g... I do understand that different people from different upbringings, as well as different parts of the world, might have a difficult time seeing how a gun can be seen as a good thing. Which I why I'm trying to present different perspectives.
  - nradov 5y ago
    No that's not how it typically works. In the vast majority of cases where a firearm is used for self defense the weapon is merely brandished and there's no actual violence.
    - bradhe 5y ago
      Split them hairs, man.
      - graderjs 5y ago
        In fact I see it as you splitting (or rather melding) the hairs, so if you're going to do that, you should be able to take it, too, right? :) Your point was violence in response to violence, as if the two are interchangeable, but there is a huge difference, both legally, morally and practically I think. One the one side you have, the primary aggressor, the "attacker" and they presumably can have the element of surprise. On the other side you have self defense and (in some places) "stand your ground", where you are "a true victim, defending yourself against an attacker". So you seem to say there's no much difference, but there's a huge difference. In the second case, where you accuse someone of splitting hairs, not only have you already done it (in a reversed way, by making a (as you admit) "pedantic" (but i'd say, incorrect) statement about two types of violence, where you conflate, rather that split, them), the point you are again conflating, "between violence actualized and violence only threatened" is also huge, and something I didn't know. I was grateful to learn that, and it's fascinating. I think that's something about guns that is ignored often in, is that they can be an effective deterrent. The effect of which, actually makes it, possibly that violence is less likely to be effected, perhaps precisely because, major violence is so easily applied. Anyway, aside from all these down in the details stuff (which are important in this topic, the semantics and nuance are key here), I'm sure you have good ideas and thinking for why you are anti-gun. It's not an easy topic for either side to argue, I think.
mod 5y ago
> (infringing on what?) In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So the word "infringe" is commonly used in that context. > making it easy for people to apply violence Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons. I'm sure most of us can infer your actual point, but it might be worth it to come up with a less-easily-defeated argument.
- krapp 5y ago
  >In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IANACS, but to me the 2nd Amendment doesn't objectively imply the right to keep and bear all possible arms, rather it prevents the infringement of the right to bear any arms. You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars. >Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons. Tell that to the Las Vegas shooter, or any mass shooter. There's a reason wars are no longer fought on horseback with melee combat and bows and arrows. The purpose of guns is to force-multiply the capacity of violence (both in power and in range) beyond what an unarmed body can commit. Yes, it's technically easier to apply the violence of a closed fist or a knife but that violence is also more contained and easier to control.
  - jakearmitage 5y ago
    > You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars. Could you elaborate on this? Why not a rifle?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - krapp 5y ago
      I'm hoping to avoid a tedious quagmire about gun classification here. A rifle might be appropriate in some situations, like defending against bears or big cats in a rural environment, but not necessarily an urban setting. An RPG would be inappropriate for both. But my point is that self-defense doesn't require access to arbitrary firepower.