5 ms·

Even if your uncited claim IS correct..so what. Freedom is not safe and safety is not freedom. The world is not safe.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago
I always find this to be such an interesting peek into the minds of others. The ability to love who you like is freedom. The ability to ingest whatever substance you like is freedom. Neither of these freedoms statistically put others in danger. One of these things is not like the other. You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. I find this viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice lives for this particular 'freedom' to be a little sociopathic.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Safety is a tyrants best friend. >>You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. I find your viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice your freedom in the name of safety.. a little unaware, ungrateful, and privileged. This current veneer of civilization that you're so privileged to live in exists because of guns and violence and is actually a rarity in the history of humankind. If you want to learn more about this you can go to the library and ask them for a book on the past 100,000 years of human history.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    >You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. One does not have the 'right' to drive a car. It is a licenced and regulated activity. 18 wheelers are more dangerous than cars, and thus are subject to more restrictive regulation. >Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. What you're talking about here is the state's monopoly on sanctioned violence. Guns are a part of that, but not a requirement. There are plenty of 'beat cops' around the world that discharge their duties without relying on firearms.
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      > Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. Exactly. You're SO RIGHT about government weighing the costs and benefits. Which is why the founding fathers made gun rights the second amendment! Isn't it great!? The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. I'm glad we're in agreement about cost vs benefits. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
      - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        >The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. Right. They weighed the costs and benefits of giving every citizen the right to own a muzzle loading flintlock musket. Such a gun was a tool used to harvest game and defend the homestead. I doubt they would make the same call today when it comes to semi auto weapons with detachable mags. They are designed to kill as many people in as short of a time as possible.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        >> muzzle loader An era when private citizens owned armadas with cannons and artilly that could level entire cities Muzzle loaders. These guys wrote a document that created one of the greatest democracies in the history of humanity, they created a beacon of freedom through out the world that paved the way for one of the greatest improvement in quality of life that humanity has ever seen. Why can't you just trust the experts?
- influx 5y ago
  I’m curious what your thoughts are on democide: “ After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimated that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle.”
- brightball 5y ago
  It’s pretty simple. Every person who is bigger and stronger than another is something who can maim or kill another. Firearms simply level the playing field. Domestic violence against women is a thing because men are almost always bigger and stronger than women, meaning without access to a weapon every woman is potentially vulnerable to the violence of a man.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    >Domestic violence against women is a thing because men are almost always bigger and stronger than women, meaning without access to a weapon every woman is potentially vulnerable to the violence of a man. Sadly, it often turns out that firearms are often turned against women in a household: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9125010/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9125010/ >readily available firearms place women at particularly high risk of homicide at the hands of a spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a close relative. It's hard to secure a firearm against one's partner.
    - brightball 5y ago
      It is, but how different would any of those situations have turned out without a firearm with a violent man usually twice the size of the woman at risk?
      - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
        Studies have shown that the more 'detached' one is from the actual act of violence, the easier that violence is to commit. All you have to do is look at domestic violence homicides in other similar countries to see that introducing guns to domestic disturbances is a recipe for people going to the morgue instead of the hospital.
  - david38 5y ago
    You’re wildly incorrect. Domestic violence against men from women is also sky high but wildly underreported. The highest rates of domestic violence are between lesbian couples. Violence has less to do with size than willingness, exposure, snd skill. Firearms do level the playing field, but only for skill and skill. This is why even though women benefit more from owning a gun, they very rare carry one. Most simply aren’t willing to engage. They would rather run away. This is of course the correct choice if you are unwilling to use a gun. Carrying one without will is worse than being unarmed.

I always find this to be such an interesting peek into the minds of others. The ability to love who you like is freedom. The ability to ingest whatever substance you like is freedom. Neither of these freedoms statistically put others in danger. One of these things is not like the other. You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. I find this viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice lives for this particular 'freedom' to be a little sociopathic.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
What you're saying is a slippery slope argument subject to whoever determines what items put others in danger. You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Safety is a tyrants best friend. >>You have the right to self defense but the 'freedom' to own something which can kill or maim dozens of others has to be balanced against the overall good of society. Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. I find your viewpoint and willingness to sacrifice your freedom in the name of safety.. a little unaware, ungrateful, and privileged. This current veneer of civilization that you're so privileged to live in exists because of guns and violence and is actually a rarity in the history of humankind. If you want to learn more about this you can go to the library and ask them for a book on the past 100,000 years of human history.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  >You could use your exact same argument that cars put other people in danger and we should walk everywhere. Or that it's for the collective good that we never leave our house because doing so increases other people's risk of death. Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. One does not have the 'right' to drive a car. It is a licenced and regulated activity. 18 wheelers are more dangerous than cars, and thus are subject to more restrictive regulation. >Society exists because men with items that can kill or maim others died to create and defend it. What you're talking about here is the state's monopoly on sanctioned violence. Guns are a part of that, but not a requirement. There are plenty of 'beat cops' around the world that discharge their duties without relying on firearms.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    > Cars are a great example, because we absolutely weigh their costs and benefits. Exactly. You're SO RIGHT about government weighing the costs and benefits. Which is why the founding fathers made gun rights the second amendment! Isn't it great!? The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. I'm glad we're in agreement about cost vs benefits. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      >The founding fathers weighed their costs vs benefits and found that the benefits outweighed the costs to such a degree that they deserved a entire amendment. Right. They weighed the costs and benefits of giving every citizen the right to own a muzzle loading flintlock musket. Such a gun was a tool used to harvest game and defend the homestead. I doubt they would make the same call today when it comes to semi auto weapons with detachable mags. They are designed to kill as many people in as short of a time as possible.
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        >> muzzle loader An era when private citizens owned armadas with cannons and artilly that could level entire cities Muzzle loaders. These guys wrote a document that created one of the greatest democracies in the history of humanity, they created a beacon of freedom through out the world that paved the way for one of the greatest improvement in quality of life that humanity has ever seen. Why can't you just trust the experts?
influx 5y ago
I’m curious what your thoughts are on democide: “ After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimated that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle.”
brightball 5y ago
It’s pretty simple. Every person who is bigger and stronger than another is something who can maim or kill another. Firearms simply level the playing field. Domestic violence against women is a thing because men are almost always bigger and stronger than women, meaning without access to a weapon every woman is potentially vulnerable to the violence of a man.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  >Domestic violence against women is a thing because men are almost always bigger and stronger than women, meaning without access to a weapon every woman is potentially vulnerable to the violence of a man. Sadly, it often turns out that firearms are often turned against women in a household: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9125010/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9125010/ >readily available firearms place women at particularly high risk of homicide at the hands of a spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a close relative. It's hard to secure a firearm against one's partner.
  - brightball 5y ago
    It is, but how different would any of those situations have turned out without a firearm with a violent man usually twice the size of the woman at risk?
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      Studies have shown that the more 'detached' one is from the actual act of violence, the easier that violence is to commit. All you have to do is look at domestic violence homicides in other similar countries to see that introducing guns to domestic disturbances is a recipe for people going to the morgue instead of the hospital.
- david38 5y ago
  You’re wildly incorrect. Domestic violence against men from women is also sky high but wildly underreported. The highest rates of domestic violence are between lesbian couples. Violence has less to do with size than willingness, exposure, snd skill. Firearms do level the playing field, but only for skill and skill. This is why even though women benefit more from owning a gun, they very rare carry one. Most simply aren’t willing to engage. They would rather run away. This is of course the correct choice if you are unwilling to use a gun. Carrying one without will is worse than being unarmed.