goetzit

The difference is that a cars only purpose isn’t to kill or maim. There are very obvious positives to having widespread access to cars. I can point you countries where there is not widespread access to guns that do not have these problems. Can you point to any that have guns as accessible in the US that don’t?

Because I know your next argument will be about knives or cars again, let me address both of those: A knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun. You can at least run from a knife, its much more personal so less people are willing to use it, and you at least have a chance of fending off the attacker. Against a gun, your only hope is that they miss. And regarding cars, you’re right, they can be used as a weapon! Do you know what solves this issue while also still allowing people to commute? Public transport! Im glad we agree cars are an issue, and that public transport is needed.

Since you clearly don’t think everyone having grenades is ridiculous, how about rockets? Missiles? Should any citizen be able to obtain those too? Mustard gas? Nuclear weapons? How far are you willing to let that go before its obvious the cons outweigh the pros?

My assumption would be that he hoped he could at least become a martyr for the Russian people. It is one thing to be accused of crimes, and flee your country forever, it leaves space for Russians to think “well if he is an innocent man, why is he on the run? If he wishes to represent this country, how can he if he flees it?”. Maybe he hoped that by coming back and facing the ridiculous charges, it could at least give him some credibility with the citizens who would maybe see the absurdity of it all, and maybe spark some kind of political unrest. It obviously didn’t work, but in the face of the hopeless political situation in Russia, can you blame him for trying?

Nah, it doesn’t. If I advocate for the right for everyone to carry grenades on them, and then I get put in a position where someone actually has one and I get scared shitless and run away, thats funny, regardless of whether or not I carry a grenade myself. Its funny because we all can obviously see that the right to carry fucking grenades is ridiculous, and by advocating for it I kinda got whats coming to me.

In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!

And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.

Because him not carrying at the time demonstrates why guns could never truly be a solution to these shootings. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and you can’t be prepared at every moment. You can’t live your life never letting your guard down.

Not to mention, if anyone should be carrying and take action in these situations, it should be the ones advocating against gun control. Missouri has some of the loosest gun control in the country. If the main argument against is the right to defend yourself, and when the time comes this guy is either not prepared or not willing to defend the people he is meant to serve, how can we expect others to?

Are we really to say “everyone should be carrying so they can defend themselves in these situations”, when the Missouri governor himself isn’t?

And when you advocate against gun control, that is the statement you’re making. That the issue of these shootings is simply solved by a good guy having a gun. If you’re saying “gun control isn’t alright because i deserve the right to defend myself”, you’re implying that everyone else has the same right, and their only chance to save themselves is to also exercise that right.

But can we expect women and children to do this? And I’m sure there are plenty of people of color who would not be super hyped to have a weapon on them during a police interaction. If the Missouri governor, one of the loudest voices against gun control can’t be expected to exercise this right, how can we expect everyone else?

Well good on you for getting through that situation, but you saying “oh, well maybe he just wasnt carrying” doesn’t really help your point. We can’t expect everyone to be carrying, at all times. And even if everyone could carry at all times, we still can’t expect everyone to be able to pull the trigger. You did, but that’s why people in your role are hailed as heroes for what they do: because most could not do it.

So your solution to the issue of mass shootings is that everyone should carry a gun on them at all times, and everyone should be ready to kill if necessary? And you don’t see the issue with that?

I’m not saying you specifically should not carry or be ready to defend yourself, and I would be a fool to pretend that you shouldn’t be willing and able to defend yourself, especially with how things are now. But do you really want to live in a world where every citizen has to be ready and willing to kill his fellow man at the drop of a hat when things go to shit? Do you want your kids, grandkids, etc. to live in a world like that?

The point isn’t that you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself. The point is that the fact that you need to is fucked up, and we shouldn’t accept it as the status quo.

I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.

Would I charge headfirst into gunfire? Absolutely not, and thats why I advocate for more gun control.

Yeah man I know a lot of guys who drop money on shit like this. None of them are “whales”, but i know they’ve dropped hundreds if not thousands on this mtx bs. None of them own homes (which is kinda normal as we are in our 20’s), but only a few of them are even living on their own at all. Something is clearly going on psychologically there, if someone is willing to forego their own needs for cosmetics (that they will later replace with new cosmetics they bought!!)

Not everyone, but the vast majority of everyone, and even those who don’t want to buy would still probably be better off with owning instead of renting.

“Going a few hundred grand in debt to buy a non-liquid asset” a house is probably the best asset you could buy for yourself, and also, do you think you’re saving money renting? Do you think a landlord is losing money on his mortgage? You’re covering the mortgage anyway, and then a premium for not having it in your name.

Do you maybe think that your shitty analogy to cancer is not the best way to decide what to do with people? Are you saying we should sterilize Palestinians? What the fuck, why do I even bother…

Sure, all religious groups in the area have had ties and claims to Jerusalem for Millenia, but the actual nation of Israel was founded in 1948.

If you found a nation on a contested holy site and try to push all the other religious groups out, you will have a huge amount of radical and violent resistance, i’m not really going to support you either.

If the situation was reversed, and the middle east was dominated by jews instead or muslims, and Israel was instead a (somewhat) recently-founded muslim nation surrounded by jewish ones, I wouldn’t feel too bad for the muslim nation that decided to set up shop there and make it your holy capital or something.

Its awful, and the whole religious side of things makes this a never-ending war with no real “moral victor”, but its just hard for me to pretend I don’t see the ridiculousness in all of this. A radical militant group kills/kidnaps 2000 isrealis and the response is to kill 15,000+ palestinians with not just tacit approval but full-blown military support from the largest world powers. We are not even talking about “an eye for an eye making the whole world blind”, we’re talking about trading an eye for a whole human body.

Should Israel have responded? Absolutely. I’m not going to say it should have even been a peaceful response. But what’s happening now is a clear over-correction, a clear attempt to both weaken the Palestinian state as a whole and the Palestinian people themselves. It will breed more violence, and you will inadvertently create groups more radical than hamas, who will point to this and say “they did not go far enough”. The Palestinian people need to reject hamas on their own, and this isn’t going to cause that.

Some guy gets his house burned down. Its terrible, so they find him a new home: its a room in your house. New roommate is intent on getting you to move out so he can take the whole house. He makes it clear that the two of you can never be equals, and that god wants him to have the house. It starts with petty psychological shit but its clear he’s trying to start a confrontation. You retaliate, he retaliates, it becomes a mess of you guys slinging shit. At the end of the day, you were minding your own business, who can blame you for defending yourself. You’ve both done awful shit but you were doing your own thing until this guy came along and declared himself owner of your house.

Thats how I look at isreal/palestine. Hamas is awful. But when you oppress millions of people you can’t be that surprised when some of them become ruthless maniacs hellbent on getting out from under your rule. Just put yourself in Palestinian’s shoes and ask yourself if you’d be alright with it.

Al Queda was terrible too, but we brought it upon ourselves invading the middle east. You can’t crush people under an iron fist and expect them to be cool with it.