Violence has perpetuated violence about 1000x more than it has led to the end of violence. Violence was a way of life for us way back. We’ve been moving away from that steadily. Trade > war. That’s the story of history. And anyway you have a problem of scope: trying to apply the allied resistance to the Nazis to the scope of personal firearm ownership in 2023. As if that’s not a giant cherry pick and leap across domains.
Your intellectual standing here is nil, chum. Your case is not made, your rhetorical approach is full of giant holes. All leading to the inexorable conclusion: yeah, an informed person disagrees with your perspective.
Shocking, I know. But hey, when reality disagrees with your narrative, discard reality, right? Back to your internet echo chamber, wherever that is…
Removed by mod
Yes, but gun regulation has historically been proven more effective than gun against gun protection. For example, Australia’s NFA in 1996.
Violence stopping violence. You have an interesting way of getting the world completely wrong.
Removed by mod
I actually have a history degree, internet guy. It does not teach us that Prometheus gave us violence so we could raise ourselves out of the muck.
Removed by mod
Violence has perpetuated violence about 1000x more than it has led to the end of violence. Violence was a way of life for us way back. We’ve been moving away from that steadily. Trade > war. That’s the story of history. And anyway you have a problem of scope: trying to apply the allied resistance to the Nazis to the scope of personal firearm ownership in 2023. As if that’s not a giant cherry pick and leap across domains.
Your intellectual standing here is nil, chum. Your case is not made, your rhetorical approach is full of giant holes. All leading to the inexorable conclusion: yeah, an informed person disagrees with your perspective.
Shocking, I know. But hey, when reality disagrees with your narrative, discard reality, right? Back to your internet echo chamber, wherever that is…