Two men stood in front of the autonomous vehicle, operated by ride-hailing company Waymo, and literally tipped a fedora at her while she told them to move out of the way.
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
“Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people.” Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.
That doesn’t answer my question as to if my statement was incorrect.
You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
Just like saying “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” isn’t an argument that a bird would be able to fly underwater, saying “I’ve never been in an accident and still wear a seatbelt” is not an argument for “always have a deadly weapon on you when you leave the house” not being evidence of a completely fucked up situation.
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?
The dystopian attitude is “you better be ready to severely harm someone at a moment’s notice every day, otherwise you’re just unprepared for day to day life.”
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.
I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.
I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.
I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.
Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.
I have sympathy for someone who’s actually been a victim of violent crime, and it’s a shame therapy isn’t a more viable option. However, there’s a big difference between
“I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me” and
“This might lead to robberies.”
“That’s what guns are for.”
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
I’ve had shit stolen. The police “handled it” to an extent but we will never get back priceless family heirlooms given to us from my wife’s side of the family. Fuck thieves.
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?
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they’re trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There’s a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn’t immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There’s also something to be said about the place you’re living in, where you’re to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back, but neither would you being armed but not home.
I know the other guy wouldn’t say it, so I’ll go ahead and do it: you sound like you’re out for revenge, but you don’t know on whom to exact it. I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back
Then it isn’t exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It’s not about the monetary cost.
but neither would you being armed but not home.
Yeah…? I don’t get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there’s a human there to operate it. No shit…
You’re simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don’t solve theft.
I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
The state I live in currently wouldn’t allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I’ve lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that’s the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.
What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
I’ve never been in a serious vehicle accident.
Still wear my seat belt though.
“Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people.” Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.
You’ve had a variation on this in just about every response. It’s getting very old. We get it, US bad.
Was my statement wrong in any way?
If it’s getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.
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.
That doesn’t answer my question as to if my statement was incorrect.
You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
Just like saying “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” isn’t an argument that a bird would be able to fly underwater, saying “I’ve never been in an accident and still wear a seatbelt” is not an argument for “always have a deadly weapon on you when you leave the house” not being evidence of a completely fucked up situation.
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?
Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.
A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.
A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.
The dystopian attitude is “you better be ready to severely harm someone at a moment’s notice every day, otherwise you’re just unprepared for day to day life.”
Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.
I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.
I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.
I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.
Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.
I have sympathy for someone who’s actually been a victim of violent crime, and it’s a shame therapy isn’t a more viable option. However, there’s a big difference between
“I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me” and
“This might lead to robberies.”
“That’s what guns are for.”
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
I remember hearing this when I lived in the UK for a few years and I was blown away. What are you expected to do if being robbed? Let it happen?
Pretty much; then get the police to deal with it.
Yeah, not here.
I’ve had shit stolen. The police “handled it” to an extent but we will never get back priceless family heirlooms given to us from my wife’s side of the family. Fuck thieves.
Did you not have a gun at the time? Or did your ownership of a gun not prevent the theft?
I wasn’t home…
Well then aren’t you lucky you had a gun to prevent that theft?
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?
Agreed thieves are terrible.
Not many better options if you are getting robbed though.
I’ll opt for stopping it, given the chance.
So vigilantism then.
If stopping someone in the act of stealing my shit or trying to harm me is vigilantism, then sure.
You would kill a person for a thing. Sounds like the mindset of an armed violent thug, only you wait for the excuse to unleash your violence.
You sound like a thief who’s mad.
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they’re trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There’s a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn’t immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There’s also something to be said about the place you’re living in, where you’re to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
Call the police. Are you in physical danger? If not why are you putting yourself in physical danger?
I don’t think I understand your question.
What scenario are you imagining with these questions?
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back, but neither would you being armed but not home.
I know the other guy wouldn’t say it, so I’ll go ahead and do it: you sound like you’re out for revenge, but you don’t know on whom to exact it. I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
Then it isn’t exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It’s not about the monetary cost.
Yeah…? I don’t get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there’s a human there to operate it. No shit…
You’re simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don’t solve theft.
The state I live in currently wouldn’t allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I’ve lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that’s the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.
They’ve taken the mask off and said the quiet part out loud: They’re just out to kill people they think of as less than human.