Notices by 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org), page 17

@lmrocha

There you go with antivaxxer logic.. you are entierly right that in a society with guns your chance of dying by a gun is higher than in countries without guns. No one ever argued anything to the contrary.

What you sayin is thr intellectually equivelant argument of "In a society where vaccines are illegal far fewer people die of vaccines...

Well duh, irrelevant what you said, but duh ;)

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805

@thatguyoverthere

Most people who argue political stuff arent really engaging, thinking, and learning.. they have these talking points they just repeat and because when they were with other people who agreed it soubded bulletproof so they stopped engaging and just parrot these points.. when you challenge them and point out the fkaws thry arent prepared so all thry can do is keep reverting to their unrelated talking points and hope no one notices the inconsistency.

He keeps talki g about gu violence despite the fact that what he said i admitted as true from the first moment, I also pointed out why its entierly irrelevant to what i was actually saying, that last part though i guess he doesnt want to hear because then he woukd have to actually construct a valid defense to address it, and he probably doesnt have one.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@pj

If you ever find or make a society where I am better protected from rape, murder, and violent acts without a gun than with a gun then i will be the first to join you there… For now that does not and never has existed.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

You are delusional (no disrespect intended) if you think this or any other place I will be safe from all violent acts.

No I dont have a gun here, and my life is more at risk than if I was allowed one, and had one.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

No need to shut up.. Disagreeing and talking about this is healthy, even if no one changes their mind the exercise is healthy.

As long as you stay respectful, as you have, please feel free to keep brining up as many points as you want.

being in a gun club, taking gun training, and everything in that regard which you suggest is a good thing. I totally encourage people join gun clubs... where the analogy breaks down is when you suggest it be a legal requirement (rather than a strong suggestion) for gun ownership.

There are a few reqasons gun licensing or requiring clubs is problematic...

1) it means some entity can take away your rights if they feel you arent living up to their expectations, this has the potential to be abused, specifically if those clubs that have the power are decided on by the government

2) It can delay your access to a gun, and if you are in danger that may cost you your life. a good example of that would be someone with a restraining order who might be at risk of being raped. They cant wait

3) Unless done very carefully it would effectively act as a registery for who does and doesnt have guns. This can potentially be used by a corrupt government to track down and take away said guns should the government want to infringe on gun rights and become oppressive.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

1) Not if being part of a club, who is a member of the NRA means you are more protected than as an isolated individual.

right, you should be just as protected if you buy a gun and have no association to the NRA, both protection in terms of the ability to use a gun to defend yourself, as well as protected from having yoru gun taken

2) If you need to arm the victim to protect themselves from being raped by someone they have a restraining order on, that order and the agency that issued it is worth as much as the paper the order is written on.

When has a restraining order ever provided any protection of any kind against a person who chooses to rape you? the only thing a restraining order would do is make it easier to get the person arrested after the fact (since you only need to prove they were near you, not that they raped you)… But no restraining order in any country would do anything to physically prevent a person from raping you if they decided they were going to… so I dont follow your logic here.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

You also need a gun shop to buy a gun, not sure the analogy works too well honestly

@pj

I have nonproblems with making sure the usual background check from a gun were enforced on all purchases. So if thats all you are puahing for you have my support

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

If you physically attack someone with a gun you loose the gun... how do you physically attack someone on the internet though? Not sure i follow

@pj

No you can buy prepaid 5g for your router and have anonymous internet if you want.

Thats what i do in Israel, my internet is completely anonymous.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

Try shooting someone and watch how fast your gun is taken away… same logic.

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

Do you think getting on the internet should mean approval from a club thoigh? Cause thats not how we do it now, anyone can get internet and cant be denied.

@pj

The idea is great except where its required.. it would be like saying if you want access to the internet you need a fediverse instance you join and that gives you permission to get on the internet.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

I think the problem is misrepresented. Mass shootings are not the problem, violence overall is and mass shootings is a very low priority when it comes to addressing that. It is too arbitrary and rare to call it the problem

@lmrocha @mike805

@mike805 The well regulated militia is clearly an exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause

@thatguyoverthere

Appeal to authority is a fallacy because being an authority doesnt mean you are trustworthy or unbiased, and to determine either of those things you need to be an authority yourself.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@thatguyoverthere

That can sometimes be an issue, but no I dont find that is generally the issue here, and peer-review will often catch that... the statistics are fine, and they arent usually biased (sometimes)... its purely an issue with "Here is Statistic X which claims Y"... X is correct, the statement it claims Y is not.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@lmrocha

No one said they were rookies, no one even said they were wrong... I am claiming **you** are a rookie for drawing conclusions from their valid study that is in no way related to what we are discussing... The scientists are fine, you are the only one who seems woefully uneducated on statistics, guns, or any aspect of this conversation.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @pj

@thatguyoverthere

The data is correct, the statistics are correct... the interpretation of the statistics is wildly invalid most of the time.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@thatguyoverthere

I disagree, the statistics are correct and valuable... the issue isnt the statistics, the issues is that they are being either intentionally abused by cherry picking and not analyzing the data in a way even the most beginer of data scientists would agree is proper.

Dont blame the data for some person trying to manipulate it, especially when its trivial to point out that manipulation and shoot it down, as I have done.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj