abortion, rape, and guns.

I’m not claiming to have a magical solution to everything. I’m suggesting that your magical solution of allowing everyone to have guns is unlikely to help. Again, I’m not opposing guns in general, only pointing out the logical and practical flaws in your initial comparison.

 

So, this whole rape exclusion thingy. Are you going to FORCE a woman to undergo a pelvic exam and publicly charge the rapist in order to get YOUR ok for her to get rid of a rapist's fetus, or is claiming rape enough?

Remember - less than 50% of woman who are raped bring charges, and given the public humiliation we've seen lately of women who have tried to come forward, I really can't blame them for not wanting to become the target of the hate or of wanting to undergo a invasive pelvic exam. FORCING a raped woman to do that is just another form of rape.

 

ad hominem added to appeal to authority. you are really racking up those fallacies my friend!

it appears you may be the party to this conversation lacking knowledge of the principles of logic.

 

guns are used frequently in stopping acts of violence. what does this tell us about guns? it’s not a trick question.

 

Yes, we are all aware that logic isn’t your thing.

by directly refuting the arguments made, with constitutional law and case precedent? Lol, ok

 

yes, unfortunately we do need to insure the woman is not gaming the system to kill her baby because it was an oopsie and not an actual rape.

anyone seeking an abortion will be subject to a VERY INVASIVE pelvic exam.

as for the treatment of rape victims, you must be talking about juanita broaderick. you’re right, what clinton’s people did to her after the governor of arkansas brutally raped her was unconscionable.

 

and another ad hominem. you are consistent, i’ll give you that! your commitment to fallacy is almost admiral.

 

Do as I say not as I do, eh???

 

It tells us that guns are used frequently in stopping acts of violence. Guns are frequently used in initiating acts of violence too. The existence of firearms, legal rights to possess them or even individuals choosing to actually act on the right doesn’t determine either of those outcomes though. Guns are still not a solution to rape.

 

pot calling kettle black =/= ad hominem.

 

the answer i was looking for was that firearms are inanimate objects, outcome determine 100% by the user. guns are used to save lives, liberate the oppressed, build nations. by GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS.

bad guys with guns do bad things. they will continue to do bad things whether they have guns or not. because that's what bad guys do

if you are trying to force your penis inside of me and i evacuate the contents of your skull with my .357JHP, your ability to continue the assault is removed. assault stops. sounds like a solution to me.

 

I see you missed the point. See, a person who complains about another for ad hominems but then turns around and uses ad hominems is what is know as hypocrisy.

 

well then welcome to the club, mate! lol.

 

There are no “good guys” and “bad guys”. The real world morality is a sea of greys so there is no justification for you to treat your two mythical types differently. Good things happen, bad things happen and lots of indifferent or mixed things happen. They all happen with or without, because or despite guns. Guns don’t magically make things better or worse overall.

In your scenario, the attacker was much bigger and stronger than you. If they catch you by surprise, they would be easily able to prevent you from even drawing your gun or disarming you and that’s even if they don’t have a gun of their own. Yet again, the legal right to possess a firearm is not a solution to rape.

 

you're right, my language was sloppy. what i did was group together a number of "may issue" states in which local jurisdictions (usually a police chief or county sheriff) essentially get to play god when it comes to the issuance of a CHL. in los angeles, for example, former sheriff lee baca (who is now behind bars on unelated corruption charges), basically said "don't bother to even apply for a chl in los angeles county." unless you are famous anti-guner rosie o'donnell's bodyguard, of course.

so i was not trying to imply that residents of those states (yours included) could not access a CHL, but that it was very unlikely in most circumstances that you could get one. admittedly, i am much more familiar with the laws here on the western side of the country. but for example, some rural counties in CA will issue a permit to any qualified applicant. but that permit is essentially useless outside of the county. so if you go to los angeles with your shasta county CHL, you can be arrested... even if you used your gun to prevent yourself from being raped. and of course, as an idaho resident, *i* can't carry a gun anywhere in CA. hence, constitutional carry.
i am happy to hear that MA has some reasonableness, and thank you for the clarification on that. but certainly in boston, you have to beg and grovel. in other words, you have to submit in writing your request and show that you have good cause to be deemed by the gun god (in this case boston police chief) as worthy of defending yourself.

can you explain what you mean by this? i know in MA you have different levels of permits, is that correct?

where did i say that? you stated that your town does not require you to beg for a permit. my reply was that you obviously don't live in boston. that would imply that in boston you DO have to beg for a permit, not that the police chief doesn't issue them. i'm willing to bet, however, given the politics of boston, that most permits are denied (like in los angeles). unless you are famous, very wealthy, or politically connected.

 

the majority of americans go through life without every assaulting another person. like for their whole life. those are the good guys. and unless something really extreme happens, they tend to stay good guys.

you assume i have not been through multiple defensive firearm training sessions and that i cannot draw and fire my weapon in 1.5 seconds. the fact is i can. that doesn't guarantee i will be victorious, but my training and my weapon dramatically shift the odds in my favor. why should i not be allowed to prevent some creep from violating me?

 

In regards to gun licenses, there is a Sport and Target. Which means one can't carry a gun on their being in public, other than at the gun range or hunting. Then there is the LTC, which is what I have, that allows me to carry if I so choose. In the town I live in, if you apply for a gun license you automatically get a LTC, no questions asked.
I wasn't saying you said Boston doesn't issue LTCs. I was ASKING you if you think this.
Do you have proof most LTC requests in Boston are denied? As of 2017 8,388 Boston residents have an LTC.

 

I understand that, but that excludes the choice of the person who is directly involved and subject to all the consequences. It's saying that their approval or disapproval does not take precedent over yours. Everyone is entitled to personal opinion and values, and those things should be applied to our own lives. I have a hard time justifying applying that to others in this case. The ideal answer is personal responsibility, but when outsiders dictate decisions but have no responsibility, that is not possible. All people make mistakes. Best we try not to apply ours to others.

 

Only because it’s defined that way in law with strict limitations and by your standards then neither is abortion, unless you’re going to carry on the hypocrisy?

No solution for you I guess, just a consequence of allowances made to limit the right tight to bear arms, just the same way you’re allowing the murder of babies when you place limits on the right to life.

Difference is you’d still be alive

Why are the consequences of your limitations on the right to life acceptable but not those that are a result of the limitations on the right to bear arms?

 

thank you for the clarification. i do not have proof, as i said just a guess. 8,388 out of 685,000? i don't have the time or inclination to look up how many permits were filed, how many denied, if the city even publishes that data. but there is a probably a reason most gun manufacturers produce "MA compliant" models of their firearms.

 

by us law, and by natural law. are you trying to argue if you try to assault me, i cannot use lethal force to defend myself from your assault?

 

Wasn't there the suggestion that a woman should just urinate or defecate to defend herself from rape?

 

When talking about abortion today, rape and incest are irrelevant. They have nothing to do with the conversation.

 

curious, does your LTC issued in your town allow you to carry in boston?

in oregon, for example, the portland city government is currently trying to invalidate CHLs issued outside of multnomah county (and portland's county does everything it can to prevent people from receiving permits even though oregon is a shall issue state). of course, oregon now has a democratic supermajority, so they will probably just order the state police to start executing lawful gun owners on sight.

 

The reason for the MA compliant models has nothing to do with LTC licenses. It has to do with MA having stricter "safety" guidelines as in heavier trigger pull and chambered round indicator on any handgun. It's beyond silly.