It's exactly what you said and it's liberal propaganda bullshit. Repeating the tired lib canard that "you are absolutely fucked if you’re by yourself and you’ve introduced a gun into the equation." :cringe: And yeah you may have qualified it with "in most scenarios I can think of" but that just speaks to a lack of imagination because I can think of plenty scenarios where being alone and having a gun could save a person's life. In fact I've literally known people who were in such scenarios where that was exactly the case.
You're discouraging vulnerable people from being able to protect themselves and it's gross.
You’re discouraging vulnerable people from being able to protect themselves and it’s gross.
You using minorities and vulnerable people as a cudgel for your lone wolf individualist argument is gross. I'm not discouraging vulnerable people from shit, the original comment was about how fetishizing gun proliferation isn't really worth anything without collectivization and you used the idea of vulnerable minority to push your argument. Get a gun, protect yourself, just get it through your head that you're not as safe as you think you are by just having a gun, by yourself.
Speaking as a minority and vulnerable person is "using them as a cudgel" now, huh?
The original comment was implying that anyone who isn't part of an org is just doing it for "consumerism" if they want a gun. Which is patently false.
I don't think I'm safe, but I would be safer with a gun. Get it through your head that broadcasting the false idea that anyone in any set of circumstances is always going to be worse off with a gun than not IS discouraging vulnerable people for whom that is obviously not true. You can twist the "original argument" and shift goalposts all you want.
The idea that you’re influenced by the consumerism and gun culture inherent to this country is not patently false.
I never implied otherwise. At all. But it is still not because of consumerism that many individuals (regardless of whether they are in a community/org) correctly feel that they should have or get a gun. Many of whom probably don't even want a gun and are horrified and sickened to be in circumstances to need one.
I don't like guns. I don't have a gun. But I have been looking into getting one because it's getting increasingly dangerous to even exist. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, I think people who are in fact vulnerable should also consider it, now more than ever. Even if they are not fortunate enough to be part of a community. I of course would also encourage anyone to become part of a community if they can, even that it is much more important than getting a gun. But I understand that it's just not feasible or possible in some cases.
I would honestly be shocked if this were not the consensus on the left.
yeah cause thats totally what i said
It's exactly what you said and it's liberal propaganda bullshit. Repeating the tired lib canard that "you are absolutely fucked if you’re by yourself and you’ve introduced a gun into the equation." :cringe: And yeah you may have qualified it with "in most scenarios I can think of" but that just speaks to a lack of imagination because I can think of plenty scenarios where being alone and having a gun could save a person's life. In fact I've literally known people who were in such scenarios where that was exactly the case.
You're discouraging vulnerable people from being able to protect themselves and it's gross.
You using minorities and vulnerable people as a cudgel for your lone wolf individualist argument is gross. I'm not discouraging vulnerable people from shit, the original comment was about how fetishizing gun proliferation isn't really worth anything without collectivization and you used the idea of vulnerable minority to push your argument. Get a gun, protect yourself, just get it through your head that you're not as safe as you think you are by just having a gun, by yourself.
Speaking as a minority and vulnerable person is "using them as a cudgel" now, huh?
The original comment was implying that anyone who isn't part of an org is just doing it for "consumerism" if they want a gun. Which is patently false.
I don't think I'm safe, but I would be safer with a gun. Get it through your head that broadcasting the false idea that anyone in any set of circumstances is always going to be worse off with a gun than not IS discouraging vulnerable people for whom that is obviously not true. You can twist the "original argument" and shift goalposts all you want.
The idea that you're influenced by the consumerism and gun culture inherent to this country is not patently false.
And again you twist what the argument even is.
I never implied otherwise. At all. But it is still not because of consumerism that many individuals (regardless of whether they are in a community/org) correctly feel that they should have or get a gun. Many of whom probably don't even want a gun and are horrified and sickened to be in circumstances to need one.
I don't like guns. I don't have a gun. But I have been looking into getting one because it's getting increasingly dangerous to even exist. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, I think people who are in fact vulnerable should also consider it, now more than ever. Even if they are not fortunate enough to be part of a community. I of course would also encourage anyone to become part of a community if they can, even that it is much more important than getting a gun. But I understand that it's just not feasible or possible in some cases.
I would honestly be shocked if this were not the consensus on the left.