• capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you have reading comprehension problems.

      I wasn’t home. There was no possibility for me to prevent this theft, gun or no gun.

      If it’s sarcasm meant to show that things can happen even when armed, no shit. If that is meant to show I shouldn’t have one at all, would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?

          If not, what was even the point of the question? I get you thought it was pithy but… It’s just kind of dumb if you won’t allow the counterfactual to support my position.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  No, you don’t want to answer it because you know how easy it is for me to find hundreds of videos online showing exactly what I’m describing and you really don’t want to admit it.

                  If “your gun didn’t save you in this one instance” means I shouldn’t have one, then the counterfactual should just as easily mean I should. But you’re not interested in applying your logic in both directions because that wouldn’t suit your position.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn’t have helped you.

                    Also, please quote me saying you shouldn’t have a gun, or at the very least implying it.