I fully addressed your initial point by undermining its fundamental premise: You repeatedly came back to the idea of being “prisoners” of another to support the idea that the general populace should be disarmed.
I suggested the possibility of alternate roots upon which you could graft your conclusions, but you have not elected to explore that option. Instead, you have ignored or dismissed the idea that the individual be empowered, rather than subjugated.
If your arguments only work when we are oppressed, the world you would build for us will always require oppression.
In this case OP used prisoner metaphorically to mean they would be oppressed by not having guns. OP confirms this with their gun grabber statement. E.g. Guns=freedom. This is of course silly nonsense.
In our society over 1 million people have died by gun violence in the last 20 years including over a thousand children every year. In Japan, for instance, zero children died from gun violence this year.
I pointed out the real metaphorical prisoners were our society who have to live under the constant threat of gun violence. Having grown up poor the constant gun shots in the neighborhood became normal. Like a bird chirping or dog barking only someone was dead.
Your nonsense about being your own best defense has nothing to do with anything that was discussed. It was truly a strange tangent, one that you seem to be unwilling to forget.
So if you would like to join the conversation stop using AI and start paying attention to what is actually said and not just what you want to hear.
So to sum it up, you did not address anything other than to show you didn’t get it. Need I remind you the original post was satire making fun of gunsexuals. OP took it as an opportunity to spread some garbage propaganda.
You see to be very confused about what is oppression. I studied oppression theory at Uni so my understanding is probably drastically different than yours. This just highlights the vast differences in understanding that we face when communicating on the Internet.
I doubt you realized it when you wrote that, but you specifically identified the actual problem. Poverty. The injustice of our economic model. The victims of that problem are two orders of magnitude greater than anything guns have ever caused.
Your nonsense about being your own best defense has nothing to do with anything that was discussed.
It does, actually. I’m not actually speaking about defending yourself. I’m talking about your mindset. I’m talking about the philosophical model required for your arguments to make sense.
It was truly a strange tangent,
From the mindset of a professional victim, yes, I can see how that would seem strange. Clearly, I don’t share your mindset. I can only assume you lack the imagination or optimism to consider a mindset of empowerment, which is apparently tangent to your current philosophy.
In all the examples you gave (with the exception of children in school), your “prisoners” have that mindset specifically because they are unarmed. They have no hope and no viable means of stopping their abusers.
The situation you describe is bleak and desperate, and only made worse by the solutions you offer.
You got it Sherlock, it is poverty and easy access to guns that causes a large part of the issue. Then you go derpy again.
You have no fucking clue of my mindset. That is some pretty good straw man your constructing this whole time.
Why don’t I start imagining your mindset? Oh wait we already know, LARPing defense scenarios.
Professional victim!? Good Lord you are one of those right wing incel fucks or you just talk like them.
Oh no, they may be unarmed like everyone modern society. How bleak and desperate. We should give everyone a gun so it can be fun and colorful.
How many moar guns until we are safe!? We already have more guns than people. Do we need ten times maybe? Don’t even bother, it is already clear you might take this seriously.
Oh no, they may be unarmed like everyone modern society.
Ah, yes. Schrödinger’s Glock.
Guns are everywhere, but nobody actually has them. Their existence and prevalence aren’t deterministic values, but dependent entirely on whatever point the hoplophobe is trying to make at any particular moment in time.
I fully addressed your initial point by undermining its fundamental premise: You repeatedly came back to the idea of being “prisoners” of another to support the idea that the general populace should be disarmed.
I suggested the possibility of alternate roots upon which you could graft your conclusions, but you have not elected to explore that option. Instead, you have ignored or dismissed the idea that the individual be empowered, rather than subjugated.
If your arguments only work when we are oppressed, the world you would build for us will always require oppression.
In this case OP used prisoner metaphorically to mean they would be oppressed by not having guns. OP confirms this with their gun grabber statement. E.g. Guns=freedom. This is of course silly nonsense.
In our society over 1 million people have died by gun violence in the last 20 years including over a thousand children every year. In Japan, for instance, zero children died from gun violence this year.
I pointed out the real metaphorical prisoners were our society who have to live under the constant threat of gun violence. Having grown up poor the constant gun shots in the neighborhood became normal. Like a bird chirping or dog barking only someone was dead.
Your nonsense about being your own best defense has nothing to do with anything that was discussed. It was truly a strange tangent, one that you seem to be unwilling to forget.
So if you would like to join the conversation stop using AI and start paying attention to what is actually said and not just what you want to hear.
So to sum it up, you did not address anything other than to show you didn’t get it. Need I remind you the original post was satire making fun of gunsexuals. OP took it as an opportunity to spread some garbage propaganda.
You see to be very confused about what is oppression. I studied oppression theory at Uni so my understanding is probably drastically different than yours. This just highlights the vast differences in understanding that we face when communicating on the Internet.
I doubt you realized it when you wrote that, but you specifically identified the actual problem. Poverty. The injustice of our economic model. The victims of that problem are two orders of magnitude greater than anything guns have ever caused.
It does, actually. I’m not actually speaking about defending yourself. I’m talking about your mindset. I’m talking about the philosophical model required for your arguments to make sense.
From the mindset of a professional victim, yes, I can see how that would seem strange. Clearly, I don’t share your mindset. I can only assume you lack the imagination or optimism to consider a mindset of empowerment, which is apparently tangent to your current philosophy.
In all the examples you gave (with the exception of children in school), your “prisoners” have that mindset specifically because they are unarmed. They have no hope and no viable means of stopping their abusers.
The situation you describe is bleak and desperate, and only made worse by the solutions you offer.
You got it Sherlock, it is poverty and easy access to guns that causes a large part of the issue. Then you go derpy again.
You have no fucking clue of my mindset. That is some pretty good straw man your constructing this whole time.
Why don’t I start imagining your mindset? Oh wait we already know, LARPing defense scenarios.
Professional victim!? Good Lord you are one of those right wing incel fucks or you just talk like them.
Oh no, they may be unarmed like everyone modern society. How bleak and desperate. We should give everyone a gun so it can be fun and colorful.
How many moar guns until we are safe!? We already have more guns than people. Do we need ten times maybe? Don’t even bother, it is already clear you might take this seriously.
Ah, yes. Schrödinger’s Glock.
Guns are everywhere, but nobody actually has them. Their existence and prevalence aren’t deterministic values, but dependent entirely on whatever point the hoplophobe is trying to make at any particular moment in time.