Originally Posted by
MadMojoMonkey
Since you can't defeat tyranny, you shouldn't fight it? Is that your point, here?
Your assertion that fighting tyranny needs to end in overthrowing tyranny to be a moral choice seems to be missing the point entirely.
Can you think of any time when tyranny was overthrown by the aid of guns?
I can and am.
The equivalency isn't false. Here's the reason why:
Your argument is that having access to guns is bad for quality of life, because of untimely deaths. If we look at the causes of untimely deaths, we can see the top causes. We can see those are medical causes, with heart disease being far and away the number 1 killer. We can read what medical professionals have to say about the causes and preventative implications therein.
We can see that gun violence isn't in the top 5. So addressing your concern about untimely deaths by focusing on a something that low on the list doesn't feel like you're being honest about your reasons for being against guns.
I'm just quoting this to point out that you have double-standards on the topic, and that you're ignoring any and all reasons that go against your conclusion, despite the fact that many of them are very good reasons.
Oskar: "Guns are bad 'cause of all the untimely deaths they cause."
MMM: "Unhealthy foods, high in cholesterol, cause heart disease, the biggest contributor to untimely deaths."
Oskar: "I don't think self inflicted causes should be in the same category as outside causes."
MMM: "Gun deaths by non-suicide is a very small % of untimely deaths, less than 1/7 that of heart disease"
Oskar: "No, suicides stay in."
MMM: "Then cheeseburgers stay in."
Oskar: "You're making an emotional argument"
??
I'm not the one with a double-standard, here.
Oskar: "There's a clear indication that having a gun around massively increases the risk of suicide."
MMM: "There are other clear indications about guns, FYI"
Oskar: "emotional non sequitur"
??
I'm making clear points. You're the one with huge gaps in the leaps from symptom to treatment with total disregard to the 'unintended' consequences of your proposal.
Calm down. Neither of these. I'm an intelligent person who disagrees with you.
I'm being respectful of your position, and of you as and intelligent person.
Please extend me the same courtesy.
FWIW, I'm sorry for the "talking out your ass" tone if that's what you're responding to. I don't really see why it's offensive, if I'm honest. The reason has already been stated. You made a spurious claim and then put in on my responsibility to disprove it. That's not how intelligent discourse works.
You didn't. Please reflect on that. You're claiming you did something that is plainly in the text record that never happened. (or show me the quote, and I'll eat my words and apologize.)
You're accusing me of being emotional, but it's you who is showing signs of injecting emotion into this conversation.