Current Events > Question for Anti-Gun users

(+) Yeah! (+)

A 19 year old bisexual girl is walking home one evening alone when two guys jump her. One has a crowbar, the other pushes her down from behind out of no where and knocks her purse out of her hands. Sending her phone and anything else she was carrying flying, out of reach of anyone but the rats.

They then say "We're going to take your money and maybe your life but first we're gonna take your dignity!" as one unzips his pants and the other raises the crowbar.

At that moment if the girl found a revolver on the floor that happened to be there nestled between 2 dustbins, would you have any problem if she grabbed it and shot them?

If no then why would you have a problem with her already having a gun concealed on her person that she owns? Then using that. The result is identical.

https://i.imgur.com/NTerokf.png

I just feel like the anti-gun approach is defacto sexism. It's nearly always an idea propagated by large often fat men who have never even considered that they might be in a situation where they are in danger against humans who are physically superior to them in strength, aggression and power. And also have never understood the psychological ramfications of being in a room where every single person inside it is staring at you and wants to fuck you, also the knowledge that if they tried there was nothing you could to do to stop them.

A gun is the ultimate equalizer which negates all of that.

A 13 year old girl could beat prime Mike Tyson in a fight... If she had a gun
---

What's an "anti-gun" and how do I use it?

She could be carrying a taser or pepper spray. Something non-lethal.
There could be better law enforcement in the area. You know, the kind that doesn't have to go around shooting people because they might be just as armed as good people like the girl in your hypothetical. Not that that's the only reason why they do it but that's besides the point right now.
How convenient that the two guys don't carry guns. Let me guess, there's legislation against it?

Bottom line, having the girl carry a gun is not the best way to protect her. This is precisely why we want gun control, good example, thank you.

closetjpopfan posted...

She could be carrying a taser or pepper spray. Something non-lethal.

Ok

1. That's probably in her purse and now useless.

2. If it's on her person (unlikely) she probably won't be able to use it before the crowbar comes down

3. If she has it on her person and uses it in time, it (maybe) incapicates one person. Then the other gets her.closetjpopfan posted...

There could be better law enforcement in the area. You know, the kind that doesn't have to go around shooting people because they might be just as armed as good people like the girl in your hypothetical. Not that that's the only reason why they do it but that's besides the point right now.

Doesn't matter how good or bad law enforcement are. They are not aware of this incident.

And police in gun free zones still may assume a perp is armed if he reaches for something or is acting suspicious.

How convenient that the two guys don't carry guns. Let me guess, there's legislation against it?

Thw law won't effect whether or not they carry guns. And even if they do carry them, once their victim pulls one out they are likely to back off.

And even if not, the first person to pull the gun can shoot them both before they pulled theirs out
---

My problem is that you want more guns everywhere instead of trying to fix the social problems that results in this.

---

No if they had guns and they were pointed at her, her pointing a run at them wouldn't make them run away. As they would have shot her if she tried to pull it. Them not having guns is the only way your situation works.

Now I am pro-gun. I believe anyone who wants to and can properly handle a gun should be allowed to happen. But what if she doesn't want a gun? That is a choice too you know.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Thw law won't effect whether or not they carry guns. And even if they do carry them, once their victim pulls one out they are likely to back off.

And even if not, the first person to pull the gun can shoot them both before they pulled theirs out

So what if they carry guns and pulls them before the victim then?

---

How is her bisexuality relevant?
---

Foppe posted...

My problem is that you want more guns everywhere instead of trying to fix the social problems that results in this.

please tell me how you can "fix" rape , murder, theft

Every nation on Earth has it and has had it since the recording of history.

This is a cop out "problem"

On par with "Sin will go away when we atone for our Sins, until then obey Yevon even if it kills you" from FFX
---

Foppe posted...

So what if they carry guns and pulls them before the victim then?

Then it doesn't matter what the laws are.

But I prefer the reality where thing are either equal or in her favor.

Other than yours where things are either against her or against her.

creativerealms posted...

No if they had guns and they were pointed at her, her pointing a run at them wouldn't make them run away.

You're wrong there. There are many cases of crooks legging it when they discover their perp is armed. Criminals are largely cowards and don't want to die.

And I'd argue guns being whipped out and not used far exceeds how many times they are fired

As they would have shot her if she tried to pull it.

If 2 men are going to ambush her with guns then whatever the law is does not matter.

It's also ludicriously unlikely for 2 men to shoot someone for no reason. Rape, beat and rob someone happens every day many times

But what if she doesn't want a gun? That is a choice too you know.

Then she doesn't have to have one?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

What's an "anti-gun" and how do I use it?

Pretty sure it's how Superman beat Darksied once.

T.C. never heard of krav maga.
T.C. never heard of pepper spray.
And all women don't tell people where they are going and avoid sketchy areas.

1/10 topic.

I support the 2nd Amendment, but red flag laws.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Then it doesn't matter what the laws are.

But I prefer the reality where thing are either equal or in her favor.

Other than yours where things are either against her or against her.

You're wrong there. There are many cases of crooks legging it when they discover their perp is armed. Criminals are largely cowards and don't want to die.

And I'd argue guns being whipped out and not used far exceeds how many times they are fired

If 2 men are going to ambush her with guns then whatever the law is does not matter.

It's also ludicriously unlikely for 2 men to shoot someone for no reason. Rape, beat and rob someone happens every day many times

Then she doesn't have to have one?

So you think people who are already pointing guns at someone is going to just let that person point a gun on them and run? Seems delusional. Yes criminals are cowardly but that this is a situation of people with a clear advantage allowing the tables to be turned. It is unbelievable.

Guns are great protection and only who wants one can have one. I don't want a gun.

---

2nd degree, 1st degree murder and manslaughter all have the same end result.

I was going to go on but if you dont get how stupid your point is then more examples wont matter.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

closetjpopfan posted...
She could be carrying a taser or pepper spray. Something non-lethal.

Ok

1. That's probably in her purse and now useless.

2. If it's on her person (unlikely) she probably won't be able to use it before the crowbar comes down

3. If she has it on her person and uses it in time, it (maybe) incapicates one person. Then the other gets her.closetjpopfan posted...

Your argument requires her to have her gun in a holster somewhere on her body, rather than it being in the (probably) more likely place which is her purse. Which would make your example useless


---

Cornhuskers posted...

T.C. never heard of krav maga.

1. Doesn't help against a man much stronger and more aggressive than you.
2. Its 2 men
3. One is armed.
4. They ambushed you

T.C. never heard of pepper spray.

1. That's probably in her purse and now useless.

2. If it's on her person (unlikely) she probably won't be able to use it before the crowbar comes down

3. If she has it on her person and uses it in time, it (maybe) incapicates one person. Then the other gets her.

And all women don't tell people where they are going and avoid sketchy areas.

Great so instead of being allowed to protect themselves, women are just banned from "men only areas" like it's 1764 and its their fault if they get assaulted.

1. That's bullshit.

2. What if this happened in an non "Sketchy" area. Like most oppotunistic crime does.

I support the 2nd Amendment

You don't appear too
---

Foppe posted...

My problem is that you want more guns everywhere instead of trying to fix the social problems that results in this.

Then you got idiots like the serial killer in Wisconsin who thinks because they have the power to end the problems the way they like that means they have the right and the justification to do so.

Yes, I understand perfectly, you want to protect the girl and most likely there's nothing that would do as... thorough a job of that as a gun, sure, and yes that would absolutely be self-defense (unlike said idiot). But surely even you can see that's not the only thing you'd be doing if you give that girl a gun. You can't just handpick and tweak hypothetical scenarios.

Or I don't know, maybe we could make a law that only teenage bisexual girls can carry guns. Hey, maybe we can train them to act as police! I'm sure I've seen that anime.

Or maybe we could be a rational, civilized society and control guns? Nah?

creativerealms posted...

o you think people who are already pointing guns at someone is going to just let that person point a gun on them and run? Seems delusional.

Happens many times every day

Sorry reality bugs you. It sees to bug a lot of you people

Yes criminals are cowardly but that this is a situation of people with a clear advantage allowing the tables to be turned.

LOL

I remind you that this is your argument AGAINST people being allowed to defend themselves. That criminals refuse to allow tables to be turned and are aggressive.

Stellar logic on your part for crippling women right there.

Guns are great protection and only who wants one can have one. I don't want a gun.

Great then don't have one.

Fun fact: Crime is lower in areas with high gun ownership, So even if you don't have one the fact 19 year old Shanice next door has one means you and your kids and your home are safer

But you want to take it away from her anyway and put her in danger if she's assaulted.
---

Well done TC. You've finally convinced me that you belong on the ignore list.

---

I need someone to explain to me why:

• Charles Kinsey got shot
• John Crawford III got shot

Before I ever think about owning a gun. If it isn't safe to:

• Lay on the ground with your hands in the air while explaining to the police that a mentally challenged man next to you has a toy truck and not a gun
• Shop for a BB gun in Walmart

Then I just don't want to risk my life. If other people want to own guns, I'm fine with that. But I'm not about to get one until some major shit changes in this country in that regard.

---

Why wouldnt the attackers also have a gun?
---

Lots of what ifs

---

closetjpopfan posted...

Or I don't know, maybe we could make a law that only teenage bisexual girls can carry guns. Hey, maybe we can train them to act as police! I'm sure I've seen that anime.

I'm for equal rights for everyone but I would open to a compromise with liberals that women are allowed to carry guns and men aren't.

It makes no fucking sense whatsoever but it's still better than nobody except criminals being armed and women need an equalizer more than men as a rule of thumb. Weaker and in more danger.

Or maybe we could be a rational, civilized society and control guns? Nah?

Rational civilized society doesn't remove rights for it's citizens and put them in danger.

When you "Control" guns all it means is the good well behaved boys and girls don't get them
---

CableZL posted...

I need someone to explain to me why:

Charles Kinsey got shot
John Crawford III got shot

Police are racist and stupid.

Not sure what Charles Kinsey has to do with gun laws tho.
---

CableZL posted...

I need someone to explain to me why:
* Charles Kinsey got shot
* John Crawford III got shot

Before I ever think about owning a gun. If it isn't safe to:
* Lay on the ground with your hands in the air while explaining to the police that a mentally challenged man next to you has a toy truck and not a gun
* Shop for a BB gun in Walmart

Then I just don't want to risk my life. If other people want to own guns, I'm fine with that. But I'm not about to get one until some major shit changes in this country in that regard.

Yeah, this is without even getting started on the other problems that are compounded with this one. The whole situation has reached RIDICULOUSNESS.

Fear has mentally incapacitated huge swaths of the US population. They're unreachable at this point. Too scared.

UnfairRepresent posted...

I'm for equal rights for everyone but I would open to a compromise with liberals that women are allowed to carry guns and men aren't.

It makes no fucking sense whatsoever but it's still better than nobody except criminals being armed and women need an equalizer more than men as a rule of thumb. Weaker and in more danger.

The problem is this still puts a lot of guns into circulation that men will use (or rather, misuse).

I understand your concern. Guns are not the solution. It's not that easy.

Rational civilized society doesn't remove rights for it's citizens and put them in danger.

When you "Control" guns all it means is the good well behaved boys and girls don't get them

A gun is not a human right. In fact having a gun is not even a constitutional right, contrary to nutcase interpretation.

closetjpopfan posted...

The problem is this still puts a lot of guns into circulation that men will use (or rather, misuse).

This isn't an isolated island like England or Australia or Japan.

Guns are in circulation. There is nothing you can do about it. No action anyone does today or for the next 100 years can remove guns out of the US.

The only question is whether or not law abiding citizens are allowed them.

I understand your concern. Guns are not the solution. It's not that easy.

Guns won't stop crime.

But they will give people an equalizer against criminals. Like the girl in the OP.

A gun is not a human right. In fact having a gun is not even a constitutional right, contrary to nutcase interpretation.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
---

Yeah, cops have guns and its worked out well for them.

---