🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@aschatermees

> Because guns are and will always be privilege.

Also this seems like a very invalid argument...I argued guns should be issued for free to everyone, paid for by taxes.. That doesnt sound like privilage to me, that sounds like equal access and eliminated financial barriers.

@BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster

@mike805 Sadly when it comes to subject non-experiment driven evidence it becomes almost entierly speculative... these things dont work too well under science because they just are so damn hard to falsify.

@aschatermees

> Therefore the right to bodily integrety is better protected by educating men and women on the topic while they're young.

No one is saying we shouldnt do that, or other ways to improve things... So you do this now rape coes from 15% of women down to 10% of women, or 5% or even 1%... guess what that 1% still need guns if they are to exercise their right to being able to protect themselves from bodily harm. Until you eliminate **all** cases then you cant say they have the right to protect themselves from bodily harm unless they have a right to a gun.

> And at this point I can already imagine your return on something like words will not ever overpower bullets.

No that would be a very idiotic response for me or anyone to have. Words have monumental effects, especially when we are talkign about words conveying life lessons at early age... please dont assume.

> But really that is just my final point: If guns over words define our rights, than we have no rights. Because guns are and will always be privilege.

You are constructing your argument against things you imagined I might say, not what I actually said... so this argument is invalid as it is not the claim or releated to any claim I'd make.

@BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster

@mike805 Thats fair... if everyone dies in one accident due to reasons like a choice to gather it is more easily explained away than people just disapearing with no plausible explanation

@mike805 I mean we are talking about god... he is all pwoerful right.. So why need to gather anyone, just make it so the christians are taken when no one is looking at them. I think one movie did it that way each person disapeared when someone looked away so it wasnt witnessed directly

@mike805 Ha... I think the idea in this scam is that you pay the 10$ per month while alive as "insurance" for your pet to be taken care of when your gone (even though you can no longer pay now).. may just be a meme too I dunno

@aschatermees

> It is quite naive to claim shooting a man at 10 feet distance beforehand of his agressive attack would be considered 'self defence'. That's very likely plain (attempted) murder in the eyes of a judge or jury.

No one is claiming that a person simply running towards you is a justification to kill them, it is starting to feel like your arguing in bad faith but i will give you the benefit of the doubt...

Obviously we are talking about a person who obviously and clearly has violent attempts charging you, and that can take countless scenarios.

Maybe he already tried to rape her, she pulled away and started to run before he had a chance to get to his feet.

Maybe he clearly stated his intent to kill you as he starts to charge you

Maybe he is brandishing a knife and quick clearly intending violence.

There are **countless** ways someone is justified in killing or shooting someone charging them, **obviously** if your going to shoot someone to protect your life you need to make sure you do it when your life is in danger.

@BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster

@aschatermees

> Of course she does. This is not synonimous for owning or using a gun though. Because the right you claim she has is in fact the right to safety and to bodily integrity.

No gun ownership is very literally a right. It is the second one in fact of the "bill of rights", which iterates some of the first and most fundemental of definition of rights.

My guess is you meant "natural right" and not just "rights" which would include "legal rights".

> Needing to protect oneself is a requirement, not a right, and certainly not a privilege to access a gun.

Since one can **not** be secure from harm without a gun. She has a right to safety and freedom from bodily harm. Without a gun you do not have those rights and as such, access to a gun is also a right.

When the day comes that you eliminate crime through any means then maybe you can argue that, but as long as crime exists on **any level** a right to protect yourself from physical harm is synonymous with your right to own a gun.

@BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster

Oh good, I can finally sleep at night!

@TruthSandwich the far left has no problem being completely vile when someone dies that they disagree with even a little... its disgusting, and its habitual it seems.

@youronlyone Have a wonderful Shabbat!

@philip_cardella