ObjectivityIncarnate

Perhaps a musket, as the forefathers were considering when they wrote the second amendment.

Own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, “Tally ho lads” the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.

But there is no need for anyone to have a hand gun

It’s a good means of self-defense from an assailant. I personally hate guns and would never own one, but I must concede that, for example, women owning guns instantly levels the playing field, re assault and the disadvantage they usually have against a male assailant, etc.

or an AR15

Apparently it’s popular enough of a hunting rifle for web pages like this to exist (found via a quick Google), and you already conceded hunting as a justified application for a gun.

I was talking about your use of car ownership as a comparison to gun ownership.

I understand you wanting to differentiate a weapon from a non-weapon causing the death, but it really doesn’t impact the analogy I don’t think, because in either case, the intended use of X is to use it when justified (e.g. re a gun, for hunting if it’s that kind of gun, for self-defense if a handgun, etc.). Now, if there was zero application for X that was justifiable for a random individual to possess, then I’d be more on board with your point (e.g. an explosive beyond ‘firecracker strength’).

perhaps because I live in a country much less… enthusiastic about guns

Well, I live in the US, and I personally abhor guns, but I try (more than most, in my experience, hence my chosen alias) not to let it bias my arguments.

This is by no means any sort of ‘pro-gun’ argument. It’s just that, since this is a themed community, when I see something that doesn’t follow the theme, if I feel like it at the time, I’ll point it out. That’s really all there was to it, lol.

That’s not the same as advocating for killing other people with guns, which is what he would have had to do for him being killed by a gun to be a LAMF.

Well, that’s not quite as good an analogy, because it’s not the alcohol itself that causes the death, re a drunk driver. It would be equally as strong as my analogy, however, if it was tweaked to ‘it’s unfortunate that some people die from alcohol poisoning, but that doesn’t mean we should ban alcohol’.

I see your point about the LAMF thing, but that’s such a dishonest comparison.

Honesty has nothing to do with it. People are calling it LAMF because they are falsely equivocating saying you should have the right to own a gun, with saying you should have the right to shoot people. That’s all there is to it. All I’ve done is point out the equivocation–in the absence of it, it’s obvious this isn’t LAMF.

Your post history seems reasonable enough so I’m hoping you won’t just be a dick about this.

I don’t believe you’ll find me ‘being a dick’ about anything in my history, so don’t worry.

The difference is cars aren’t a tool specifically for killing people.

That isn’t really relevant, though.

The point is simply that in order to something to be LAMF, the thing that was advocated for others must be the same thing that’s happened to the ‘LAMF’d’.

Kirk was advocating for maintaining the right to own a gun. Not for the right to shoot people.

On top of that, another aspect that’s required is that the thing being advocated for is intended by the 'LAMF’d to apply only to certain others, and the LAMF comes in when it ends up applying to them as well (hence “never thought they’d eat my face”). In this case, he was advocating for gun ownership to be a right, in other words, something that applies to everyone. It’s literally impossible for something that’s advocated for everyone to become a LAMF situation; the ‘for them but not me’ assumption is a necessary component of the ‘before’.

You’re even changing the context in your comparison, this isn’t a drunk driver killing a dude, it’s someone intentionally hitting a man with their car.

But Kirk advocated for the right of owning a gun, analogous to owning a car. Not with unlawfully (accidentally or not) shooting someone, analogous to (accidentally or not) running someone over (which thankfully is always unlawful, lol).

Thoughts?

No it wouldn’t, that’s a false analogy.

He didn’t say you should be allowed to shoot people and/or use a gun in any unlawful way (which is what’s analogous to ‘drink and drive’), he said you should be allowed to own a gun (which is what’s equivalent to owning a car).

This is obviously not LAMF.

If someone said “it’s unfortunate that some people die in car crashes, but that doesn’t mean we should ban cars”, and then they’re killed by a drunk driver, would you call that LAMF? Was that person advocating for people to be killed in car crashes?

Obviously not.

the most stunningly ironic last words

Something happening while you’re talking about it isn’t irony.

If it was a gang hit that killed him it would be, but I doubt that’s the case.

what/who you are and advocate for causes these things

“If someone tries to assassinate you, it’s because you deserve it”, in other words.

Seems like a pretty dangerous stance to take.

Oh, so all of a sudden Hugo from New Jersey’s not good enough to get a red underline?

I also noticed that the dichotomy is “luxury spending” vs. “paying off debt”, but that debt could easily have come from prior ‘luxury spending’, lol.

The source cited in this article is a website that’s shilling products, no methodology available at all, that I can see.

I’ve got a worthless degree i deeply regret

Meanwhile, not far from this comment is someone claiming no one regrets getting their degree, lol.

were those numbers perhaps cherry-picked to make the situation look more dramatic than it actually is?

If anyone can go from 554th to 5th in any sport/event just by competing among the other sex, nothing else changing, then that obviously indicates something. You can’t handwave that away.

Her personal 100m freestyle time dropping less than a quarter of a second post-transition is honestly a bigger indicator that transition is not making a substantial difference, because that angle completely removes the ‘chance’ element in your opponents being different people.

The very fact that their ranking is lower than what it should be is an issue in and of itself, your disingenuous mockery notwithstanding.

The question is fair, but so very few people are affected, who cares?

The vast majority of people are never murdered, either. But I’m sure it matters to them and their loved ones.

It’s an extreme example for the analogy, but the point stands: it doesn’t follow that a bad thing being rare makes it less bad. This is not a valid argument against.

My understanding is that there is absolutely no evidence that trans women have an advantage.

Going from 554th place pre-transition to 5th place post-transition doesn’t line up with that claim.

The fact that the University of Pennsylvania swimmer [Lia Thomas] soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle; all divisions) in men’s competition to one of the top-ranked swimmers in women’s competition tells the story

In the 100 freestyle, Thomas’ best time prior to her transition was 47.15. At the NCAA Championships, she posted a prelims time in the event of 47.37. That time reflects minimal mitigation of her male-puberty advantage.

During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men’s team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women’s deck.

It may not be an issue to you, but it’s an issue to every woman whose ranking is lower as a result. I imagine it especially hurts if you’re pushed out of first place in that way.

It’s now trivial, in 2025, to depict the world as a 3D shape, this is coming a few decades after it matters, imo.

Pointing out that your “of course” makes no sense, and then giving several examples of why it doesn’t, does not an “angry rant” make.

You’re projecting.