The man who fatally shot a woman who was in a car that turned into the wrong driveway was sentenced Friday to 25 years to life for his second-degree murder conviction.
They are defending themselves for having a gun, probably because the feel guilty for having one at their core or feel like others will judge them for it
Yeah I think there is a bit of a disconnect with gun people. Some people are purely about self defense, some people are just genuine enthusiasts, and then there is the group of people who like to pretend they are part of the first two groups but really seem to have a lust for blood - be it fear (someone rings the door bell, or mistakenly drives down the driveway), perceived persecution, political ideology or just downright racist shit.
Antigun people seem to think everyone who likes guns is part of the last crazy group. It’s a bit hard to really tell who is who sometimes, but it’s definitely impossible to keep the guns out of the crazies hands.
Yes, they have no business carrying a deadly weapon. I’m not minimizing the crime nor the impact on the victim, quite the contrary. Unless there’s a serious reason to expect recurrence and law enforcement is no help, you’re giving a traumatized untrained person a deadly weapon. You’re setting that victim up to murder an innocent person.
How is this person any different than you hypothetical rape victim? I don’t know why he may have been living in fear, but having a deadly weapon just meant that a traumatized untrained person murdered an innocent person.
I assume many rape victims, and many other people are traumatized. I assume they may act out of fear.
I assume the likelihood of anyone defending themselves from an actual threat is very low, especially someone acting out of fear, especially someone untrained. They’re not likely to be making rational, responsible choices, nor able to reliably do what they intend. You’re just trading one problem for another
I assume someone 3D printing a weapon is a stupid edge case. Very few people can do it, it’s unlikely to work well, more likely to injure the user. Most importantly no one is 3D printing a gun on impulse, emotion, fear
protecting yourself from a tyrannical government is completely unrealistic, and you could argue already here. Governments will always have many orders of magnitude more resources than you, many more deadly weapons, and many more practiced killers. Most importantly we’re no longer in a time when most of the governments weapons are people bringing their own musket. It’s more important than ever to defend against a tyrannical government, but frightened people shooting anyone who turns around in their driveway or knocks on their door is not the way to do it.
2 & 3.) How do you know they didn’t receive help/treatment? Also, you can’t just assume that every person is the same, most people go out of their way to get proper training to use a firearm.
4.) No, it’s gotten way easier, there are blueprints everywhere online freely available and guides on how to make 3D printed guns at home.
5.) Why did the USA pull out of Afghanistan then? We have the best military in the world, yet we couldn’t beat the people who live in the desert that had basically nothing? Urbanization is a nightmare in any war. In the end, it doesn’t matter how many resources they have. You have to remember that people in the military have friends and family back home, there would be a lot of internal conflict. Also, If we leave the people defenseless, we’ll end up just like China and Russia.
Just because you have a firearm doesn’t make you part of the “gun people” generalization.
Do you fantasize about getting to shoot your gun? Have you tied your identity to your arsenal of guns? Do you feel the need to open carry at the grocery store? Do you open fire on cars in your driveway?
No? Then you’re not in the “gun people” group being talked about. People who own guns are not the same as the “gun people”, or “gun nuts”/“ammosexuals”.
Just because you have a firearm doesn’t make you part of the “gun people” generalization.
Actually that’s kinda exactly what it means when people say “all gun owners blah blah blah.”
Do you fantasize about getting to shoot your gun? Have you tied your identity to your arsenal of guns? Do you feel the need to open carry at the grocery store? Do you open fire on cars in your driveway?
No, no, concealed (especially after Buffalo), and the last one is called “crime.”
No? Then you’re not in the “gun people” group being talked about. People who own guns are not the same as the “gun people”, or “gun nuts”/“ammosexuals”.
Disagree. If I say all women are sluts, but then some nun says “well I’m not,” I can’t claim I wasn’t talking about “all women” when I said “all women.” It’s preposterous. By that same coin, when someone says “all gun owners,” they can’t claim to "only be talking about the bad ones.” One should instead be more specific, like say “irresponsible gun owners blah blah blah,” if one wishes to make the distinction between “all” and “bad.”
*Disclaimer: No, I don’t believe all women are sluts, I was using it as an example of a stupid generalization specifically. I shouldn’t have to add this disclaimer, but we all know I have to before some cheesedick decides that was my argument and argues with a strawman.
They didn’t say “all gun owners” they said “gun people” which to anyone with awareness can infer it means the people who tie their identity to their weapons.
What a shitty analogy to women, I’m not even going to touch that.
Would it have been clearer if the original comment said “irresponsible gun people”, sure, but it wasn’t and self-centered people want to be the victim when they haven’t understood they aren’t even in the group.
I’m Dutch and even I could glean the intended meaning from the context.
Yeah so if I say “woman people” I’m not talking about all of them, only a specific subsect that I failed to describe, and then I’m confused why people think I’m generalizing?
C’mon, “gun people” is a clear generalization that clearly implies “all gun owners.” He could’ve said “irresponsible gun owners” to single out those who he wished to refer to, but he didn’t, thus the “confusion.” If it was actually his wish to single out those people, actually doing so in the future would help his posts not be misunderstood.
Lol yes, don’t bother touching how dumb generalizations are, make them instead.
So you’re telling me that making generalizations about a group is good, and if someone in that group feels like the generalization is unfair and doesn’t reflect them or reality, they should stop being a snowflake? You by chance voting for an orange this election?
Ah, Dutch, that explains it. The Dutch love to generalize.
I own a firearm because I don’t want to be a victim again. Until you know what its like to truly fear for your life, only then you’d understand.
Although, I’m not going to defend this guy who ruthlessly shot that poor girl, simply no excuse for that.
Not sure what your point is? Are you defending him for having a gun?
They are defending themselves for having a gun, probably because the feel guilty for having one at their core or feel like others will judge them for it
Or because the comment they directly replied to said “gun people” broadly and they took it to mean "owners"and not “ammosexuals”
I can’t imagine why they would feel that way after reading
Yeah I think there is a bit of a disconnect with gun people. Some people are purely about self defense, some people are just genuine enthusiasts, and then there is the group of people who like to pretend they are part of the first two groups but really seem to have a lust for blood - be it fear (someone rings the door bell, or mistakenly drives down the driveway), perceived persecution, political ideology or just downright racist shit.
Antigun people seem to think everyone who likes guns is part of the last crazy group. It’s a bit hard to really tell who is who sometimes, but it’s definitely impossible to keep the guns out of the crazies hands.
Whole lot of projecting in this thread
Edit dowmvotes from those who are afraid of being downvoted themselves!
You said: ‘gun people are the biggest bunch of frail cunts’
What about the people who physically can’t protect themselves? Are you going to call a rape victim who has a gun to protect themselves a frail cunt?
Yes, they have no business carrying a deadly weapon. I’m not minimizing the crime nor the impact on the victim, quite the contrary. Unless there’s a serious reason to expect recurrence and law enforcement is no help, you’re giving a traumatized untrained person a deadly weapon. You’re setting that victim up to murder an innocent person.
How is this person any different than you hypothetical rape victim? I don’t know why he may have been living in fear, but having a deadly weapon just meant that a traumatized untrained person murdered an innocent person.
1.) Do you expect all criminals to follow the law?
2.) Are you assuming that every rape victim is crazy?
3.) What about when law enforcement doesn’t show up in time?
4.) How do you know they’re not 3D printing firearms?
5.) What about when your government becomes tyrannical?
I assume innocent people far outnumber criminals
I assume many rape victims, and many other people are traumatized. I assume they may act out of fear.
I assume the likelihood of anyone defending themselves from an actual threat is very low, especially someone acting out of fear, especially someone untrained. They’re not likely to be making rational, responsible choices, nor able to reliably do what they intend. You’re just trading one problem for another
I assume someone 3D printing a weapon is a stupid edge case. Very few people can do it, it’s unlikely to work well, more likely to injure the user. Most importantly no one is 3D printing a gun on impulse, emotion, fear
protecting yourself from a tyrannical government is completely unrealistic, and you could argue already here. Governments will always have many orders of magnitude more resources than you, many more deadly weapons, and many more practiced killers. Most importantly we’re no longer in a time when most of the governments weapons are people bringing their own musket. It’s more important than ever to defend against a tyrannical government, but frightened people shooting anyone who turns around in their driveway or knocks on their door is not the way to do it.
1.) That doesn’t really mean anything.
2 & 3.) How do you know they didn’t receive help/treatment? Also, you can’t just assume that every person is the same, most people go out of their way to get proper training to use a firearm.
4.) No, it’s gotten way easier, there are blueprints everywhere online freely available and guides on how to make 3D printed guns at home.
5.) Why did the USA pull out of Afghanistan then? We have the best military in the world, yet we couldn’t beat the people who live in the desert that had basically nothing? Urbanization is a nightmare in any war. In the end, it doesn’t matter how many resources they have. You have to remember that people in the military have friends and family back home, there would be a lot of internal conflict. Also, If we leave the people defenseless, we’ll end up just like China and Russia.
They live a privileged life where nobody legitimately wants to seriously hurt or kill them, and they can trust law enforcement to protect them.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
Just because you have a firearm doesn’t make you part of the “gun people” generalization.
Do you fantasize about getting to shoot your gun? Have you tied your identity to your arsenal of guns? Do you feel the need to open carry at the grocery store? Do you open fire on cars in your driveway?
No? Then you’re not in the “gun people” group being talked about. People who own guns are not the same as the “gun people”, or “gun nuts”/“ammosexuals”.
Actually that’s kinda exactly what it means when people say “all gun owners blah blah blah.”
No, no, concealed (especially after Buffalo), and the last one is called “crime.”
Disagree. If I say all women are sluts, but then some nun says “well I’m not,” I can’t claim I wasn’t talking about “all women” when I said “all women.” It’s preposterous. By that same coin, when someone says “all gun owners,” they can’t claim to "only be talking about the bad ones.” One should instead be more specific, like say “irresponsible gun owners blah blah blah,” if one wishes to make the distinction between “all” and “bad.”
*Disclaimer: No, I don’t believe all women are sluts, I was using it as an example of a stupid generalization specifically. I shouldn’t have to add this disclaimer, but we all know I have to before some cheesedick decides that was my argument and argues with a strawman.
“Gun people” != “all gun owners”
They didn’t say “all gun owners” they said “gun people” which to anyone with awareness can infer it means the people who tie their identity to their weapons.
What a shitty analogy to women, I’m not even going to touch that.
Would it have been clearer if the original comment said “irresponsible gun people”, sure, but it wasn’t and self-centered people want to be the victim when they haven’t understood they aren’t even in the group.
I’m Dutch and even I could glean the intended meaning from the context.
Yeah so if I say “woman people” I’m not talking about all of them, only a specific subsect that I failed to describe, and then I’m confused why people think I’m generalizing?
C’mon, “gun people” is a clear generalization that clearly implies “all gun owners.” He could’ve said “irresponsible gun owners” to single out those who he wished to refer to, but he didn’t, thus the “confusion.” If it was actually his wish to single out those people, actually doing so in the future would help his posts not be misunderstood.
Lol yes, don’t bother touching how dumb generalizations are, make them instead.
So you’re telling me that making generalizations about a group is good, and if someone in that group feels like the generalization is unfair and doesn’t reflect them or reality, they should stop being a snowflake? You by chance voting for an orange this election?
Ah, Dutch, that explains it. The Dutch love to generalize.