[withinboredom]

I have no clue what I just read or what kind of mental gymnastics are required to say that a right to a weapon overrides a right to live.

It used to blow my mind when I moved here (Netherlands) that I wasn't allowed to use a weapon to defend myself... but then you realize ... basically nobody has weapons.

[Zigurd]

An irony is that guns are vastly more often used for self harm than for self defense. These supposed defenders of rights are often losing their own lives and the lives of family members with the instruments they demand to have a right to have.

[ern_ave]

I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Here's what I think just happened:

Me: I value the right to self defense

You: Guns are used for self harm more often than self defense [as an aside, I don't disagree that this is true - I've heard this stat many times]

You: This is ironic!

Please help me to understand why you think that's ironic. What do you feel would be a non-ironic position? Is it this....

Me: I value the right to self defense, but one day I might want to kill myself, so I guess I'd better give up the right to self defense.

Is that a non-ironic position? To me that seems like an irrational position. Those two issues (self defense and self harm) seem orthogonal, and conflating them because of a superficial similarity (they both involve guns) seems odd.

[withinboredom]

Ok. Now this is logic I understand. Nobody is saying you don’t have a right to self defense. The question should be: why do you have a right to bring a gun to a fist fight?

[ern_ave]

> The question should be: why do you have a right to bring a gun to a fist fight?

Great question. The answer is: bad people are often significantly stronger than their victims.

Have you ever seen this video [1]? The woman is 72 years old. She might be able to defend herself with a gun, but she has no chance with fists.

How about this video [2]? I have many, many examples like this. It's honestly kind of terrible that you hadn't considered this: guns give average women a better chance against strong, violent men.

So the question should be: why do you seek to deny women this right?

[1] https://imgur.com/a/OVaMWHB

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvXDLTTdQFE

[withinboredom]

Are you serious? Like, actually serious?

Killing someone for pushing you over is not "self defense". This is a category error.

[ern_ave]

> Are you serious?

Yes.

> Like, actually serious?

Actually, yes.

> Killing someone for pushing you over is not "self defense".

> This is a category error.

No, it's a definition error on your part. Let's define self defense.

A person is justified in using, or threatening to use, lethal force, in order to defend themselves or another person against:

(1) eminent death (e.g. being shot or stabbed)

(2) great bodily harm (i.e. injuries that could lead to death)

(3) the eminent commission of a forcible felony (e.g. rape or kidnapping)

A 72 year old woman being violently attacked by a young man unambiguously qualifies as condition (2). I'm terrified and disgusted that you watched that video and then characterized it as "pushing her over"

Some reports I've seen indicate that this woman, who is in her 80s, died [1]

Intentionally attacking an old woman is very, very likely to cause her great bodily harm, and completely justifies a lethal response. If you disagree, I encourage you to show that video to your friends and family. I'm interested to hear how many of them can dismiss it as you just did.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQYyDH2l0h4

[ern_ave]

> I have no clue what I just read

A lot of people are incapable of contending with hypotheticals or thought experiments. It's okay.

If you'd like to try again, I encourage you to read up to the point where something doesn't make sense. Quote only that sentence, and ask me to explain.

Notice how I'm not even asking you to read the whole thing - just to the point where you have trouble. This is very reasonable.