5 ms·

> (b) anybody with common sense knows that it would both be lacking in nutrition, and lead to other health issues Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need

by dangus 3y ago

> (b) anybody with common sense knows that it would both be lacking in nutrition, and lead to other health issues Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need a gun in a police station because the police have already secured the police station. Everything you said in your comment as a rebuttal to my analogy fit my analogy perfectly. Let me reiterate: “interrogation” as described in this story is legal. It’s just a forceful word for asking questions. Police are allowed to ask questions in almost any situation, which is why they do it so much. They don’t have to automatically tell you that you’re not obligated to answer or stick around.

cryptonector 3y ago
> Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need a gun in a police station because the police have already secured the police station. Reading this subthread, it seems pretty clear that one wouldn't legally carry in a police station out of fear of needing it, but out of fear of having it stolen from their vehicles.
- dangus 3y ago
  Having a firearm unsecured and unlocked inside a vehicle is a crime isn’t it? How many children die from unsecured firearms every year again? I swear, every pro-gun logic path brings you back to the fact that guns are dangerous to have around.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    Who said anything about "unsecured and unlocked"? I don't think you can easily secure a gun in a vehicle when the vehicle can be stolen. Also, it is not the case that "having a firearm unsecured and unlocked inside a vehicle is a crime" where I live.
    - dangus 3y ago
      Since property is so easy to steal then it’s probably not good for society to have minimal restrictions on ownership of firearms.
      - 0ct4via 3y ago
        You're being deliberately disingenuous again, there's a massive difference between securing something on your person, and leaving it unattended in a vehicle - especially given how commonplace vehicle thefts and break-ins are. If you're going to troll to push your anti-gun rhetoric, at least try and go for reasoned arguments rather than ridiculous hypotheticals and apparently-serious hyperbole.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        dangus 3y ago
        It’s sad to think that we’re so deep into the gun lobby’s idea of normal society that you think what I am saying is “pro-gun rhetoric.” No, it’s not, my rhetoric is that of a person that wants to live in a society as the rest of the developed world understands it. Here’s my reasoned argument: our government is verifiably deeply intertwined with gun organizations and manufacturers. Without this influence we would see our nation’s wildly statistically abnormal situation as a cause for urgent action. Instead, we’ve been trained to think of that anything against our “freedom” to own guns as “anti-gun rhetoric.” https://archive.is/sNDTt https://archive.is/sNDTt
        0ct4via 3y ago
        Who is "we" in this? You're making things up, casing baseless assumptions, and I said "anti-gun rhetoric," not pro -- so if you're going to lie, at least don't make it something instantly disprovable. Your rhetoric is by your own admission rhetoric, and is demonstrably anti-gun, therefore "anti-gun rhetoric" is an accurate observation to make -- why are you getting triggered about that? I didn't say the NRA wasn't a steaming pile of trash. I didn't say there weren't issues with big gun manufacturers getting into bed with politicians, just as happens with corporations across the entire capitalist hellscale -- that's the nature of it. Instead, you just made baseless assumptions (which you're patently wrong about) and lashed out with your spiel. Don't assume. Quit trolling. Try harder next time.

by dangus 3y ago

cryptonector 3y ago

> Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need a gun in a police station because the police have already secured the police station. Reading this subthread, it seems pretty clear that one wouldn't legally carry in a police station out of fear of needing it, but out of fear of having it stolen from their vehicles.

dangus 3y ago
Having a firearm unsecured and unlocked inside a vehicle is a crime isn’t it? How many children die from unsecured firearms every year again? I swear, every pro-gun logic path brings you back to the fact that guns are dangerous to have around.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  Who said anything about "unsecured and unlocked"? I don't think you can easily secure a gun in a vehicle when the vehicle can be stolen. Also, it is not the case that "having a firearm unsecured and unlocked inside a vehicle is a crime" where I live.
  - dangus 3y ago
    Since property is so easy to steal then it’s probably not good for society to have minimal restrictions on ownership of firearms.
    - 0ct4via 3y ago
      You're being deliberately disingenuous again, there's a massive difference between securing something on your person, and leaving it unattended in a vehicle - especially given how commonplace vehicle thefts and break-ins are. If you're going to troll to push your anti-gun rhetoric, at least try and go for reasoned arguments rather than ridiculous hypotheticals and apparently-serious hyperbole.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - dangus 3y ago
        It’s sad to think that we’re so deep into the gun lobby’s idea of normal society that you think what I am saying is “pro-gun rhetoric.” No, it’s not, my rhetoric is that of a person that wants to live in a society as the rest of the developed world understands it. Here’s my reasoned argument: our government is verifiably deeply intertwined with gun organizations and manufacturers. Without this influence we would see our nation’s wildly statistically abnormal situation as a cause for urgent action. Instead, we’ve been trained to think of that anything against our “freedom” to own guns as “anti-gun rhetoric.” https://archive.is/sNDTt https://archive.is/sNDTt
        0ct4via 3y ago
        Who is "we" in this? You're making things up, casing baseless assumptions, and I said "anti-gun rhetoric," not pro -- so if you're going to lie, at least don't make it something instantly disprovable. Your rhetoric is by your own admission rhetoric, and is demonstrably anti-gun, therefore "anti-gun rhetoric" is an accurate observation to make -- why are you getting triggered about that? I didn't say the NRA wasn't a steaming pile of trash. I didn't say there weren't issues with big gun manufacturers getting into bed with politicians, just as happens with corporations across the entire capitalist hellscale -- that's the nature of it. Instead, you just made baseless assumptions (which you're patently wrong about) and lashed out with your spiel. Don't assume. Quit trolling. Try harder next time.