capital @ capital @lemmy.world

reddit refugee

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

1,570

Joined

2 yr. ago

If stopping someone in the act of stealing my shit or trying to harm me is vigilantism, then sure.

You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.

No. It doesn't do that at all. Nothing in my comment should be construed as to equate the wearing of seat belts and the carrying of firearms. They are different things, meant for different purposes, with different consequences for their misuse.

The analogy demonstrated ways in which they are the same - having it and not needing it is usually what happens and needing it and not having it can be very bad.

Edit: Y'all think Eliza Fletcher would have been better off carrying that day?

There are a lot of disingenuous replies in this comment section but I'll just go on explaining as if you actually don't understand.

The rating comment was meant to demonstrate that I am not at my peak physical condition and am more vulnerable than my outward appearance portrays.

I mean, I don't require your trust.

But consider the consequences if I misuse my gun. They're quite a lot more serious than those caught stealing.

Yeah the people stealing shit are... different people and not me?

What is your point?

Was my statement wrong in any way?

Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.

It's like if I said "a fish swimming is like a bird flying" and you coming along and saying "omg swimming and flying are the same now????/"

I even spelled it out - it's about preparedness.

Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn’t have helped you.

That was an example of the police not getting my shit back.

In just about every response in this thread you've shown you're not actually here to engage in good faith by being a sarcastic dickhead so I think I'm done with you.

Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I'm quite sure none of them allow it when someone "bothers you".

You're shitting me, right?

In this thread where I describe my fucked up back, rating from the VA, my inability to win fistfights, my worry about my wife and daughter defending themselves from men. And you can't figure out what I mean by "strong" and "weak". Bullshit. But fuck it, let's do this.

You haven’t defined “the strong” or “the weak”

Both of these are used to describe ones physical prowess in relation to the other. They're relative. Someone "stronger" than me can overpower me through physical means and I would be helpless to defend against it, given no other tools.

or what you mean by “self-defense.”

I'll just go with the dictionary on this one:

the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative

Now feel free to explain what you mean by "take advantage of" in the context of my using a gun to defend myself.

Edit: I just fucking knew I would go as far as to define these well-known words to get nothing in return. You can tell it was going that way this whole exchange.

No, you don't want to answer it because you know how easy it is for me to find hundreds of videos online showing exactly what I'm describing and you really don't want to admit it.

If "your gun didn't save you in this one instance" means I shouldn't have one, then the counterfactual should just as easily mean I should. But you're not interested in applying your logic in both directions because that wouldn't suit your position.

Please define "take advantage of" in your comment. The entirety of my comments here have been in a self defense context. I don't see how my owning and carrying a gun means I'm "taking advantage of" anyone.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to answer that question if I were you either.

would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?

If not, what was even the point of the question? I get you thought it was pithy but... It's just kind of dumb if you won't allow the counterfactual to support my position.

Me.

And my wife, and daughter. People that, without the use of arms, will always be the weaker given it's usually men who commit these crimes.

You're missing the point - this tool takes physical strength out of the equation for self defense purposes and you're acting like it's a bad thing.

I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you have reading comprehension problems.

I wasn't home. There was no possibility for me to prevent this theft, gun or no gun.

If it's sarcasm meant to show that things can happen even when armed, no shit. If that is meant to show I shouldn't have one at all, would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?

I truly hope the police reach you in time, every time.

And without one, the stronger will always prevail over the weak. I can't believe I need to spell this out.

It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.

Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.

You've had a variation on this in just about every response. It's getting very old. We get it, US bad.

I've never been in a serious vehicle accident.

Still wear my seat belt though.

I'll opt for stopping it, given the chance.