|
heavyblinker -> RE: Another day, another "small" mass shobooting (11/20/2017 9:25:10 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Because it is easier to defend yourself if the person attacking you doesn't have a gun.
I have told you, repeatedly, why this is not correct. I've said it so often, there are probably a dozen people on this thread alone that already know what I'm going to say.
I stand 5'2". I'm female. I'm coming up on fifty. I can promise that I'm not in the best shape of my life.
With nothing else considered ('cause last time, you gave me sh^t for it) this means my AVERAGE male opponent is eight inches taller than me, which means they have a longer arm an leg span than I do, has a body mass greater than mine, and has a type of upper body strength that I don't have.
Please tell me how it's "easier" to defend myself?
If you're really thinking I've got a 50/50 shot against a physical assailant, you should hit the horse track right now, put every dime you own on the longest bet you can find, and be confident that the thousand to one gamble is going to pay off.
I didn't say your attacker isn't still a threat, I didn't say everyone is equal... I said he doesn't have a gun.
Having a gun makes everyone more dangerous-- isn't that the whole point of owning one?
This isn't the same argument-- other people have tried to make it the same argument because they can't have arguments they haven't already had 100s of times before.
The novelty hurts their brains.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
No, he didn't. It's not human error when something that wasn't mandated as a part of the person's job wasn't done. It's not required to hit that little 'x'' on a certain screen field, so it's their failure?
Human error would be under the category of "mistake". Supposed to have been data entry and somebody miskeyed.
FFS can we just drop this?
It has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
My point is that people are FALLIBLE and do incredibly dumb things/make mistakes at their job/neglect things, not that this all fits into a specific legal category.
I don't understand why this distinction is so important-- at this point it's like you just want me to be wrong about SOMETHING so you can keep ignoring the rest of my argument.
My overall argument (that nobody has actually even addressed yet) is that it should be up to a person to prove they ARE capable of responsibly owning a gun, not for the system to prove they AREN'T. I am not going to explain it beyond that, because it will have been for at least the 10th time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
It may be deeply cynical, but it's still a valid position... but feel free to keep on screaming that everybody must become perfect so that the background checks system will finally work for a change.
Again, you're kind of blowing it. Nobody is asking any person doing a job to be absolutely perfect. Crud, most data entry is done correctly at a high percentile. Crud, I can only imagine what my boss would say to me if I was only doing my job right 95% of the time.
I was using hyperbole.
If you could blame every single mass shooting on incompetence, negligence, failing to report, etc... then okay, I would grant you that-- but it's a different flaw every single time. Obviously, your boss isn't like everyone else's boss... you can bemoan the end of the good old days when everyone was competent and did everything correctly and was never negligent (happy?), but those days are gone.
A lot of shootings wouldn't have been prevented by the background checks system at all. What if a shooter doesn't even have a criminal record? The Vegas shooter didn't.
I have made all of these points before and nobody has even responded, because the RWNJs can only respond to a single argument-- the 'OMG LIBRUL GUN BAN' argument.
It's really frustrating.
|
|
|
|
