And without one, the stronger will always prevail over the weak. I can't believe I need to spell this out.
Who is "the stronger" in a situation where you have a gun and someone else does not?
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.
Ah, so what you mean is that it's okay for the strong to take advantage of the weak when you're the strong one.
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.
Interesting how you want me to define terms but haven't defined them yourself.
You haven't defined "the strong" or "the weak" or what you mean by "self-defense."
Maybe start defining your terms first before you demand it of others.
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.
Sorry, not good enough definitions.
A starving man on death's door manages to break into your home to steal a loaf of bread. You have a gun and see him do it.
Who is the strong one and who is the weak one there? Who is acting in self-defense there?
And I am happy to explain that if you shot and killed the man in that situation, you would be taking advantage of their weakness.
Wait, I'm no pro gun person, but like if some fucking random breaks into my house even to steal bread, you can bet your ass I'm threatening them back out with a knife or some shit. How would anyone know that they're there as a poor person stealing bread and not to mess with your family? I doubt you or anyone else would act differently under that pressure short of being really well trained in conflict diffusion. This whole thing seems super disengenous.
I thought this was about shooting people?
Let me make it clear then, if a gun was around I would threaten them out / shoot them with the gun if they wouldnt leave. Pick your tool and I would at least try to use it. The part of Your strength argument that I don't think makes sense and isn't real is that if a poor person breaks into your house that you would allow them to steal from you from a high moral stand point. Further, you would somehow manage some sort of completely calm demeanour because you somehow know that they are someone in need there to steal and not there to hurt you or your family.
Okay, but you're making a completely different argument than the person I am discussing is making. Especially since you mentioned a knife before. You can chase someone like that out of your home without a gun.
Really, most home invaders can be driven out with a baseball bat. The ones that can't... I guess be prepared to murder them.
If someone is strong enough to break down my door even when they’re starving, I’m gunning them down and asking questions later.
Like your logic doesn’t add up here at all. “If someone is extremely weak but also strong enough to forcibly enter your home”
Nah
You know there are these things called 'windows' that you can break easily and climb through, yes?
Also, I thought you were done talking to me. Make up your mind.
I repeat my point: if someone is trying to break in my window- I’m shooting first and asking questions later
Which makes them the weak one and your claim of self-defense a spurious one. You don't actually know if you're in danger.
Holy fuck you’re not thinking at all? If someone is breaking into your home, you’re in danger.
Or do you want everyone to be obligated to go over and check on the well being of the person first?
“Hey I know you’re busy breaking into my home for an unknown reason, do you need a hand? Some water? Maybe a tic tac? You know what, let me just get that window for you”
No that’s fucking stupid. You have very very obviously lived an extremely sheltered life where you don’t have to worry about your own protection
No he’s saying that weapons permit people to be equally strong.
Without weapons, big people get to control smaller people. With weapons, a person gets to modify their own susceptibility to being controlled.
I’m guessing you’re a rather large person if you don’t understand this.
And yet they said they would shoot a starving person breaking into their home to steal a loaf of bread. That doesn't sound like 'equally strong' to me.
And without one, the stronger will always prevail over the weak. I can't believe I need to spell this out.
Who is "the stronger" in a situation where you have a gun and someone else does not?
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.
Ah, so what you mean is that it's okay for the strong to take advantage of the weak when you're the strong one.
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.
Interesting how you want me to define terms but haven't defined them yourself.
You haven't defined "the strong" or "the weak" or what you mean by "self-defense."
Maybe start defining your terms first before you demand it of others.
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.
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.
I'll just go with the dictionary on this one:
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.
Sorry, not good enough definitions.
A starving man on death's door manages to break into your home to steal a loaf of bread. You have a gun and see him do it.
Who is the strong one and who is the weak one there? Who is acting in self-defense there?
And I am happy to explain that if you shot and killed the man in that situation, you would be taking advantage of their weakness.
Wait, I'm no pro gun person, but like if some fucking random breaks into my house even to steal bread, you can bet your ass I'm threatening them back out with a knife or some shit. How would anyone know that they're there as a poor person stealing bread and not to mess with your family? I doubt you or anyone else would act differently under that pressure short of being really well trained in conflict diffusion. This whole thing seems super disengenous.
I thought this was about shooting people?
Let me make it clear then, if a gun was around I would threaten them out / shoot them with the gun if they wouldnt leave. Pick your tool and I would at least try to use it. The part of Your strength argument that I don't think makes sense and isn't real is that if a poor person breaks into your house that you would allow them to steal from you from a high moral stand point. Further, you would somehow manage some sort of completely calm demeanour because you somehow know that they are someone in need there to steal and not there to hurt you or your family.
Okay, but you're making a completely different argument than the person I am discussing is making. Especially since you mentioned a knife before. You can chase someone like that out of your home without a gun.
Really, most home invaders can be driven out with a baseball bat. The ones that can't... I guess be prepared to murder them.
Also, with a bat, you're less likely to kill a family member you think is a criminal you're defending yourself from.
If someone is strong enough to break down my door even when they’re starving, I’m gunning them down and asking questions later.
Like your logic doesn’t add up here at all. “If someone is extremely weak but also strong enough to forcibly enter your home”
Nah
You know there are these things called 'windows' that you can break easily and climb through, yes?
Also, I thought you were done talking to me. Make up your mind.
I repeat my point: if someone is trying to break in my window- I’m shooting first and asking questions later
Which makes them the weak one and your claim of self-defense a spurious one. You don't actually know if you're in danger.
Holy fuck you’re not thinking at all? If someone is breaking into your home, you’re in danger.
Or do you want everyone to be obligated to go over and check on the well being of the person first?
“Hey I know you’re busy breaking into my home for an unknown reason, do you need a hand? Some water? Maybe a tic tac? You know what, let me just get that window for you”
No that’s fucking stupid. You have very very obviously lived an extremely sheltered life where you don’t have to worry about your own protection
Jesus you’re pointlessly obtuse
No he’s saying that weapons permit people to be equally strong.
Without weapons, big people get to control smaller people. With weapons, a person gets to modify their own susceptibility to being controlled.
I’m guessing you’re a rather large person if you don’t understand this.
And yet they said they would shoot a starving person breaking into their home to steal a loaf of bread. That doesn't sound like 'equally strong' to me.