Post ASWPG6uPz2quZPrypk by david@social.thecrow.uk
(DIR) More posts by david@social.thecrow.uk
(DIR) Post #ASVxLzaLKRcUsQUoeO by glynmoody@mastodon.social
2023-02-09T19:06:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Missouri votes against banning children from carrying guns in public - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/09/missouri-rejects-ban-children-carrying-guns-in-public and yet #murica wonders why it has vastly more gun deaths (and gun suicides) than anywhere else on the planet...
(DIR) Post #ASVxM0UhwshrhErpVQ by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T20:42:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody Why is the codification of violence towards millions of peaceful people (in that any law to be written would be solely applicable to them), justified by the actions of a small few?
(DIR) Post #ASW3XH92yvwGFQUZNI by glynmoody@mastodon.social
2023-02-09T21:51:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt sorry, I don't understand what you mean there...
(DIR) Post #ASW3mVWPoLXVBGgYrI by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T21:54:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody Laws are the codification of violence. They come in the form "If you do this we will hurt you".Gun laws, invariably are administrative crimes, malum prohibitum, in that they criminalize behaviours that have no victim. They are peaceful acts.When you write a law "ar-15's are banned", you are telling people, who have harmed no one, that their behaviour will result in your (royal you here) violence.Why is such a thing acceptable?
(DIR) Post #ASW42IJqfMBwrnKqgq by glynmoody@mastodon.social
2023-02-09T21:57:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt well, it's acceptable because the net result is that a few people use ar-15s to kill innocent citizens, so on balance, laws banning them are preferable to that outcome, I'd say...
(DIR) Post #ASW4DeAHmgqZo0H9Wa by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T21:59:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody So you are taking it to the utilitarian.Where does that end?I mean, banning cars would get rid of 30+ thousand deaths a year, far more than the 2-300 to the ar15. So would you agree that the same argument applies there? And if not, why not?Is there any place where the use of violence against peaceful people for your benefit is not acceptable? Just curious where your line is?
(DIR) Post #ASW4MXwYHjql7G5ykq by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T22:01:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody And just want to point out, you are approving of using violence against millions of people, because of the actions of a few dozen. Kinda curious how that balances out in your mind.
(DIR) Post #ASW4OE9woQMOKvA94a by glynmoody@mastodon.social
2023-02-09T22:01:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt well, banning cars would probably also cause many deaths from people unable to get to hospitals etc. letting people own ar-15s doesn't really have the same upsides. but yes, it's always judgement call based on particular details of each situation.
(DIR) Post #ASW4RLhHFChKaBEzJo by glynmoody@mastodon.social
2023-02-09T22:02:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt quite simply: one is lethal violence that can't be undone; the other is non-lethal and can be reversed if found to be inappropriate...
(DIR) Post #ASW4SwbLWJmHKSE9Jo by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T22:02:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody There are plenty of upsides to firearms ownership. For instance, using them against people who aggress upon you.
(DIR) Post #ASW4btRybb3QA770Ge by glynmoody@mastodon.social
2023-02-09T22:03:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt that's not really an upside for society when it leads to huge numbers of gun deaths, including of bystanders. if very few have guns - as in the UK - people resort to far less effective weapons - like knives, with far fewer deaths, especially of bystanders...
(DIR) Post #ASW4dyrdRpEDX36ofg by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T22:04:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody Violence can't be reversed, that's part of why it is so egregious.So again, why is it acceptable to use violence against people at all, let alone when you see utility from doing it?I mean, thieves steal, they use violence to take from others. They get utility from doing it, for instance, money that can be used for food or housing. Given they will use the money for a positive thing for themselves, does this justify their use of violence against people as well?
(DIR) Post #ASW4nTqFdv5wDJzWmu by glynmoody@mastodon.social
2023-02-09T22:06:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt you're using a non-standard definition of violence. a parking ticket is not violence, even a prison sentence isn't violence in the real sense. and both can be reversed.
(DIR) Post #ASW4o214aBxACjJeNM by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T22:06:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody The issue here is that to make your argument here, you have to collectivize gun owners, all of them, together, and then spread the guilt from those who do commit harm, to those who do not.Is such a technique acceptable elsewhere? For instance, statistically there are particular cohorts that are more violent than others. Would you then agree it is acceptable to punish them all to avoid future crimes of the few who commit them?
(DIR) Post #ASW4tmxXTeFXF9PMvo by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T22:07:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody The largest mass murder not committed by gov't happened in Nice France, and resulted in dozens dead and hundreds injured. A gun was not used. A truck was.
(DIR) Post #ASW4wxsjKASNzHfoHo by glynmoody@mastodon.social
2023-02-09T22:07:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt true, but irrelevant
(DIR) Post #ASW4yKJDQTYPpki9EO by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T22:08:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody All laws are ultimately backed by violence. That ticket for instance, is backed up by a threat of kidnapping, which is backed by a threat of assault, which is backed by a threat of death.
(DIR) Post #ASW52rMoSWOfWHYULo by glynmoody@mastodon.social
2023-02-09T22:08:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt no, not really
(DIR) Post #ASW541ZO0jEfS7zXwe by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T22:09:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody You made the argument that banning guns would result in less effective weapons being left over.I refuted that by pointing out that a truck resulted in the largest mass killing by a civilian.
(DIR) Post #ASW59jHYurJoTMNJJI by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T22:10:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody Yes, yes really.What happens when you don't pay the ticket?It's called the use of force continuum. It is an ever increasing level of violent aggression by the state.
(DIR) Post #ASW5PEQJPsKLOmrMrw by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-09T22:12:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@glynmoody It's not an outlier. In fact, there are MANY weapons used for mass murder, all of which you are overlooking. Fire for instance is regularly used. As are poisons.Hell, even knife attacks result in double digit murders.And aside of this, the utility of using violence against peaceful people isn't justified by the utility you receive from doing it.
(DIR) Post #ASWPG6uPz2quZPrypk by david@social.thecrow.uk
2023-02-10T01:49:59.908861Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt @glynmoody Which is why the US army sends troops into battle armed with a can of gasoline and a roll of duct tape, along with a pair of sharp scissors, and a kitchen knife.
(DIR) Post #ASWPG7ZXW9kIcx6ovg by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-10T01:55:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@david @glynmoody They do indeed burn, crush and stab those they murder as well as shoot and blow them up.
(DIR) Post #ASX0AclUKN4lw6wKuG by dumbledope@mastodonapp.uk
2023-02-10T08:48:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt @glynmoody You seem to have conveniently forgotten airliners because they don't figure in the narrative of shrug shoulders and say there's nothing we can do about it because freedom. Since 9/11 the airline industry has changed radically, inconveniencing everybody and removing their freedoms to carry their own tap water let alone guns.
(DIR) Post #ASXEafuGfVEGZEMXqK by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-10T11:30:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dumbledope @glynmoody I very clearly and explicitly said that I was speaking about mass murders caused by non gov't actors.And it is circular reasoning to say "the govt is infringing rights here therefore it is just to do it elsewhere". The same argument from me aplies in both locations. It is wrong to use force against peaceful people.
(DIR) Post #ASYMHgF6Juaj1jPb16 by dumbledope@mastodonapp.uk
2023-02-11T00:31:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliswyatt @glynmoody TFW you realise you're dealing with a conspiracy theoristAlso TFW when you realise you've spent the whole evening reading the report and the closest it comes to supporting his theory is this:"It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda’s fund-raising activities."https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-911REPORT/context
(DIR) Post #ASYSMSpIEDe2ae0Lbs by elliswyatt@social.freetalklive.com
2023-02-11T01:39:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dumbledope @glynmoody you just explained that the taliban is a govt.