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.
“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.
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.