• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Did you not have a gun at the time? Or did your ownership of a gun not prevent the theft?

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you have reading comprehension problems.

          I wasn’t home. There was no possibility for me to prevent this theft, gun or no gun.

          If it’s sarcasm meant to show that things can happen even when armed, no shit. If that is meant to show I shouldn’t have one at all, would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?

              If not, what was even the point of the question? I get you thought it was pithy but… It’s just kind of dumb if you won’t allow the counterfactual to support my position.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.