You should have that right. Just know that statistically, you're much more likely to shoot your husband in anger with that gun than a person attempting rape. And I'm not just going by statistics - I documented crime scenes for 9 years with three local departments - went on a number of shooting calls and not one was to document a person shooting an attempted rapist. Did quite a few domestics where someone shot their spouse, however. And two super sad cases where a brother shot a brother by accident. Not saying you shouldn't carry - just want you to be realistic about it.
i understand that, but generally when cities and states are controlled by "blue" officials, it is indicative of their general attitude towards guns. so in a jurisdiction that places all kinds of restrictions on firearms, it is not a stretch to assume the same people involved in creating those restrictions would also have a hand in limiting access to citizen carry to the extent they can.
if i shoot my husband, it will only be after he succumbs to the zombie epidemic and is trying to eat my brain. i was not seeking your advice and have been shooting for longer than i'd care to admit, most of my life. i am very knowledgeable in the use, operation, safety practices, disassembly, cleaning, carrying, tactics, and strategies surrounding firearms. as a woman, i know more about guns than most men i meet. but thank you for mansplaining it to me anyway.
I didn't claim it wasn't of human origin. Sperm from a human is of human origin. Egg from human, is of human origin. Sperm also exists. So sperm and eggs are human beings then. We do need to legally define a fetus. In fact, it has definition already. My agenda is my business, not yours. As my agenda doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form. That's what's nice about MY agenda. While your agenda is to rule the bodies of every female on earth who has become pregnant.
And that is exactly what I told the OP thread starter. We are both pro choice. She has a few more restrictions on the choices, but that is the only difference. A line in the sand.
Yes, we are aware that you don’t know what that word means. Direct refutations of your position with constitutional law and case precedent isn’t a fallacy, lol.
still posting ad hominem fallacies! wow. is a fallacy... called appeal to authority. your argument rests on the fact that a certain thing must be right because it's a law. this is a debate. you need to substantiate your position with facts and data, not with fallacious appeals. and in fact, in the case of a democracy, you are actually committing two potential fallacies: one is the appeal to authority i have already noted, the other is the appeal to popularity, ie just because a thing enjoys popular support it must be right...
We get it. You don’t need to keep providing examples of you not knowing anything about logic. No it isn’t. Which brings us back to you now knowing anything about logic.
The left prefers the woman be raped and the have the choice to have an abortion over the woman having the capacity to defend herself, thus negating the need to consider an abortion. Interesting how these same people support restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that send them into apoplectic shock when considered for abortion.
Not at all, just the hypocrisy of accepting limitations on one right but not the other. Limitations are a compromise between differing views, your arbitrary limitations on the right to life are no more or less valid than the limitations on the right to bear arms.
You assume your attacker hasn't grabbed you before you even realise he's a threat. You assume your attacker isn't your boyfriend who pushes making out further than you want. You assume your attacker isn't your step-father, sneaking in to your room at night. You assume the average gun owner will take that level of training and will always have their firearm loaded and easily accessible. You assume everyone would even take up the right to own and carry firearms. You assume they'd be capable of applying it in the heat of the moment. I'm still not saying your shouldn't be allowed to, I'm saying it isn't a solution to rape. Maybe you should just drop this flawed non-argument and focus on the actual argument you're trying (and failing) to hide behind it.
straw man. you are attempting to conflate a medical procedure that always results in the death of a living organism with owning or possessing an inanimate object, which is inert and requires a conscious act on the part of the user to function. the two are not even rationally related, except for the potential to use the latter to defend against an assault which may necessitate the former.
i am assuming nothing. as a woman, i believe i am quite aware of the potentiality for rape and the various modalities through which it is perpetrated. i have made no claim that a firearm guarantees i (or any woman) will not be a rape victim. i am claiming that having one and the skills to use it can dramatically shift the odds in my favor and bias the threat dynamic for a better outcome for the victim, and possibly an unanticipated outcome for the perpetrator. and my guns are always loaded and easily accessible. at least the ones i use for personal protection. the others are safely locked away in a gun vault, where they belong until we are ready to use them.
What straw man, what argument have I miss represented? these are your arguments I’m talking about, limitations on the right to life are ok, for example abortion ok in some instances, limitations on right to bare arms not ok as it would mean you can’t have a gun. Why are limitations on one ok but not the other? You’re the one trying to justify two different standpoints on the same issue I’m comparing limitations on rights, the right to life and the right to bear arms, how are they not related.