Anonymous #1 5w

huh

2

Anonymous #1 5w

its kinda funny that youd accuse me of that for promoting the 2a but not the literal jihadist spammer

6

Anonymous OP 5w

Oh that’s not you? I assumed all the posts that sucked in the last hour was you and your compound-mates

1

Anonymous #5 5w

Also property comes from your body because it is connected to labor.

0

Anonymous #5 5w

But overall you are correct and I am amused at people that don’t understand this.

0

Anonymous #5 5w

there's virtually no evidence suggesting people commonly use guns for self defense. evidence suggests it's rare you're 2x more likely to be shot just by living in a home with a gun. many reasons, from accidents to escalations by intruders with firearms guns are not the best defense tech. the best defense tech is preemptive and preventative. that means good, clear security measures that ward off threats (who commonly seek soft, vulnerable targets)

0

Anonymous #5 5w

oh and don't think for a second that "intruders will be shot" signs will help either. you're just more likely to get sued (:

0

Anonymous #6 5w

1. Yes it’s good that’s it’s rare. I bet it would be even more rare if more citizens were armed as it would act as a deterrent for committing crime in the first place 2. Let’s say that is true. How do you prove the cause? For example an area with higher crime and more shootings might keep more guns in homes to protect themselves 3. Why can’t you have both. Also you can have a gun and not use it. Again a deterrent. If it’s not good at stopping violence should police not have guns? Just a thought

0

Anonymous #5 5w

Also why should the government have a monopoly on violence? In other words you can’t defend your own rights only people working for the government, like the police can. Without force rights don’t really work. If you can use force to stop someone from raping and killing you then you don’t really have the right to your body at all.

1