@admitsWrongIfProven @thatguyoverthere

On that we agree, but not related to guns in anyway

@freemo Might be that some other factors aggrevate the violence in the usa, yes.

I think there are countries with as much guns, but way less shootings.

Question for me would be: what would produce results in the short term, because the social problems won't be solved over night. If there is any effort made at all, i can't judge that from here.

@admitsWrongIfProven Oh thats easy, immediate, extreme, tax funded access to therapy and medication for everyone. Implement this immediately and you will find easily the biggest short term solution that also has thr benefit of working even better as a long term solution

@freemo That's a positive approach i appreciate very much. I would think there needs to be more, like work against poverty, but your suggestion is doubtlessly a good one.

@admitsWrongIfProven you asked for short term and immediate solutions. Fixing poverty is very impactful but also more of a long term sokution and not quite as easy to address

@thatguyoverthere @freemo Ah yes, now that you mention it, we have that all the time.
Just yesterday i had to have my head reattached, always such a hassle!

@admitsWrongIfProven @thatguyoverthere

I lived for 30 out of my 40 years in the USA. Ive been threatened at knife point twice, ive never once been threatened with a gun in person.

@freemo @thatguyoverthere Hmm, survivorship bias?

@thatguyoverthere Haha yeah, that was the point. Would you joke about being beheaded, if you were?

@thatguyoverthere What survivers? That mechanism doesn't work if people aren't killed by the numbers...

@thatguyoverthere Happy to amaze :-D

@admitsWrongIfProven @thatguyoverthere

Very much doubt that but happy to look at the numbers to try to find out.

@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven @freemo various incidents involving axes and knives in germany, more often than mainstream reports on it.

you wouldn't have someone killing multiple people with an axe if we had legal carry here.

@bonifartius I find free for all too exhausting.

@admitsWrongIfProven why? if someone wants to kill others he'll just use a knife, hammer or a car like we have seen.

@bonifartius You do realize that hammers or knives yield higher risk for the attacker, right?

If i told you "shoot that bear", that might sound feasible. What about i give you a knife instead and let you have at it? Changes the "courage" needed, doesn't it?

@admitsWrongIfProven @bonifartius you do realise that the victim potentially having hammers and knives yields less risk for the attacker, right? One of the cool things about guns is that a victim armed with a gun gas much better chances of defending themselves from an attacker with a gun than the same situation with melee weapons, especially since thugs tend to target weaker marks like women.

@admitsWrongIfProven @bonifartius this directly translates into disincentivising attacks.

@Amikke @bonifartius Ah, the old problem of "never sleep, always alert" again. Not a valid reason imo.

@admitsWrongIfProven @Amikke it's my duty to my fellow humans to be alert. alertness is not panic. trading in alertness for comfort is a bad deal. alertness isn't only limited to self defense situations. something burning? lost dog? old lady wants to cross the street? all of those require alertness.

@admitsWrongIfProven @Amikke i'm pretty OT here, but the poison of "someone else handles that" is really evil. people even have no compassion anymore, except for when someone else tells them. someone else usually is the state or one of it's fronts.

@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven @freemo "legal". now we have violent armed state sponsored thugs keeping others from exercising their natural right of self defense with proper means.

@bonifartius @thatguyoverthere @freemo Ah, now i'm on board again. "Lützerath", a german town with a coal quarry, has had those thugs. They forcefully removed peaceful protestors against the mining of coal unnecessary for our energy needs.

In truely american style, instead of peaceful protest, maybe lots of guns could have yielded a better result. Purely hypothetical, but humans killing other humans might just be better for the environment.

@admitsWrongIfProven @bonifartius @thatguyoverthere

You wanted an example of why i thought yojr arguments are bad faith, you have another example.of it here

@freemo @bonifartius @thatguyoverthere So then, what thugs are we talking about? It is in extremely bad faith to just pose "thugs" and then critizise me.

@admitsWrongIfProven @bonifartius @thatguyoverthere

No not listing thr thugs may be incomplete but not bad faith. Your response woukd be to ask (as you did) and thrn if thr other person is arguing in good faith thry will answer, which they also did.

@freemo @bonifartius
You kind of ignore how it is relevant.
The coal was reported to be unnecessary, the protest legit, the police working for the interests of the industry, not the people.

They were state sponsored thugs in this instance, forgive me for exaggerating things to show how absurd i find the idea of using violence here.

@admitsWrongIfProven @bonifartius

No i dont ignore it.. relevant or not they may have been arguing poorly (thats debatable) but thats not bad faith. A bad faith argument is when you intentionally and blindly try to manipulate the conversation to win.

If i thought they **intentionally** hid or lied about who they are, sure. Bjt no they were happy to explain so not bad faith.

@freemo @bonifartius I did use exaggeration, i'll give you that. But i would argue that bad faith arguments are a bit more than that.

@admitsWrongIfProven @bonifartius

I agree exageration isnt really the factor that makes it bad faith. The mocking is strongly suggestive though, which is how the exageration comes across.

@freemo @bonifartius Hmm, i need to consider that. I guess the disinformation guy riled me up a bit with his bad faith stuff, i guess i should take longer pauses between responses.

Sorry, @bonifartius - you were not who i meant with the tone. Point stands, though.

@admitsWrongIfProven @bonifartius

Kts all good. Fairly minor really. Just wanted to point it out

@admitsWrongIfProven this isn't about american style any more than there are americans who are voluntaryist :)

to be beaten and robbed by the state and still thinking it's a good idea to have armed gangs with a monopoly on violence is a bit weird.

you wouldn't have had lüzerath in the first place as the state couldn't simply disown people for the "common good".
@thatguyoverthere @freemo

@bonifartius I don't understand why you would trust private ownership to be more in the interest of the common good?

@admitsWrongIfProven because private ownership never tried to fuck with me yet. they might just do it, but that still is to be seen.

additionally, corpocracy happens _because_ of a state enabling it by providing said thugs and keeping people from defending themselves.

@bonifartius It seems we have very different personal outlooks. Can't really imagine it is possible to discuss this rationally in the brevity needed here. Would be more like days of talking than a few messages.

@admitsWrongIfProven no harm done!

you can read https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/No_Treason or watch some videos of https://m.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose if you are interested where i got my ideas from ;)

in essence it's about universal nonviolence except for self defense.

@robryk @freemo Hmm, that approach weighs on trust in the institution not to abuse power, which would be what freemo doubted.
I would ask if with this little trust, the administration can be legitimate at all.

@admitsWrongIfProven @robryk

Youd need a standardized way, and frankly psychiatry juat gets it wrong too often, e en if i did trust the govt to act responsibly i dont think the medical institutions are able to reliably and accirately diagnose people. False positives are rampant, which isnt so harmful for a person seeking help(you usually try deveral competing diagnosis ubtil one works). But in a gun ownership setting where the first, and likely wrong, diagnosis sticks... yea no sorry that just sounds like a bad move.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven

Why would the first diagnosis stick? I would expect the setup to be roughly along the lines "if you think it's wrong, you can appeal, but then a larger number of doctors get to examine you and their majority opinion is adopted". In such a setup, ignoring issues of cost, you'd be asking for a consensus of a random(?) subset of local psychologists. Are you pointing at the cost issues or something else?

@robryk @admitsWrongIfProven

Thats true, first diagnosis may not need to stick.

So how about this, handke it like a court. A person takes a standard test with standard questions. If all 12 of 12 randomly selected doctors who arent allowed to talk all come up with ide tical diagnosis it sticks. The person can appeal once a year and if even one doctor disagrees with the diagnosis the diagnosis is repealed.

I dont personally support this due to other concerns of abuse. But if this woukd be at all workable youd need a blind diagnosis requiring consensus.

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo

Trust is very contextual. For example, from opinions of random folks I know, I would have less trust in authorities (or institutions in general) in my area in the context of dealing with _very_ atypical situations compared with situations that they've likely thought about ahead of time.

@robryk @thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven

While that might aflddress part of the concern it seems a recipie for abuse, especially in a field that is known for quite an abundance of false positives and inconsistency when it comes to diagnosing.

Its basically the equivelant of saying "Get some government agent to talk to you, if you feel suspicious you can just deny them a gun"... i mean if you want to create a standardized test for it maybe, but even then sounds like a recipie for abuse.