easy access to guns
Oh no, they may be unarmed like everyone modern society.
Ah, yes. Schrödinger’s Glock.
Guns are everywhere, but nobody actually has them. Their existence and prevalence aren’t deterministic values, but dependent entirely on whatever point the hoplophobe is trying to make at any particular moment in time.
Having grown up poor
I doubt you realized it when you wrote that, but you specifically identified the actual problem. Poverty. The injustice of our economic model. The victims of that problem are two orders of magnitude greater than anything guns have ever caused.
Your nonsense about being your own best defense has nothing to do with anything that was discussed.
It does, actually. I’m not actually speaking about defending yourself. I’m talking about your mindset. I’m talking about the philosophical model required for your arguments to make sense.
It was truly a strange tangent,
From the mindset of a professional victim, yes, I can see how that would seem strange. Clearly, I don’t share your mindset. I can only assume you lack the imagination or optimism to consider a mindset of empowerment, which is apparently tangent to your current philosophy.
In all the examples you gave (with the exception of children in school), your “prisoners” have that mindset specifically because they are unarmed. They have no hope and no viable means of stopping their abusers.
The situation you describe is bleak and desperate, and only made worse by the solutions you offer.
Definition. Catsup, ketchup, or catchup is the food prepared from one or any combination of two or more of the following optional tomato ingredients:
Call it Katchup, or Ketsup, or “ketchup-flavored condiment”, and you’re good to go.
Thank you for leaving me the last word in this discussion.
In future discussions, I suggest you remember the moral and ethical ramifications of conflating justifiable and non-justifiable killings.
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats.
No.
While certainly true, I don’t need that fact to be true to demonstrate the more important point. I elect not to support that point. For this discussion, you are free to consider that a concession.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
This was the first line of my initial response to you. There is no moral or ethical dilemma with using deadly force to stop a deadly attack.
I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
You’ve got it backwards. The law on justifiable homicide arises from moral and ethical grounds: It is morally and ethically permissible to use deadly force against an attacker. It is not morally or ethically permissible to punish a victim for killing their attacker. Those two points demand a narrow exception to the general rule that “killing is wrong”. The laws on self defense and justifiable homicide reflect the morality and ethicality of using deadly force on an attacker.
Likewise, it is immoral and unethical to count the death of an attacker as a “killing”, at least for purposes of denouncing the use of the tool used to cause their death. Conflating the deaths of attackers with the deaths of victims is deceitful, immoral and unethical.
6th amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial. The only way he doesn’t see a jury is if he waives that right.
The most common way they extinguish a threat is by convincing the attacker to fuck off with great rapidity, when they realize their intended victim is capable of returning harm. This “fucking off” saves the life of the intended victim.
But I suspect you’re referring to the taking of the attacker’s forfeited life, which extinguishes the threat posed by that attacker, saving the life of the victim.
You do realize that the law does not criminalize “justifiable homicide”, right? You do realize the amorality of counting a “justifiable homicide” as the “taking of a life”? You do realize the deceit required to conflate criminal and justifiable homicide, right?
I fully addressed your initial point by undermining its fundamental premise: You repeatedly came back to the idea of being “prisoners” of another to support the idea that the general populace should be disarmed.
I suggested the possibility of alternate roots upon which you could graft your conclusions, but you have not elected to explore that option. Instead, you have ignored or dismissed the idea that the individual be empowered, rather than subjugated.
If your arguments only work when we are oppressed, the world you would build for us will always require oppression.
Ok, I’ll demonstrate my point by asking you a question. You are attacked. A gun nut is 3 minutes away from you. A cop is 6 minutes away from you. You are, obviously, present at the scene of the attack.
Which of those three people has the greatest capability of protecting you from that attack?
The cop can start protecting you 6 minutes into the attack. This particular gun nut can protect you 3 minutes into the attack. The only person capable of immediate response is… You.
The arguments in your initial comment only make sense when you are disarmed. When you are not disarmed, your arguments become nonsensical: you are no longer a helpless prisoner or a victim, subject to the whims of abusers and attackers.
I do not accept the premise of “helpless victimhood” required by your argument. If you want to make the same conclusions, support them with a reasonable premise.
And while I certainly don’t expect you to believe me, I feel obligated at this time to deny your claims of AI intercession.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
The reality is that the attacker forfeits their right to life for the duration of their attack: the life saved holds greater legal, moral, and ethical value than the life wasted on the attacker.
Guns are meant to extinguish threats, not lives. They do, indeed, save lives.
If you want it that high, I would suggest using wok seasoning methods instead of cast iron. Basically, you “blue” the pan (develop a black iron oxide layer) by holding it at 550F for an hour or so. You’ll burn off the oil every time you use it, but the black oxide layer is relatively non-stick. This will work better with carbon steel than cast iron.
Alternatively, you might consider an even heavier pan, to hold a 400-450F temperature even longer.
The burner will get well over a thousand. Without something cooling it off, a pan can overheat even on low.
I think maybe sometimes I burn the seasoning from cooking with too high heat?
That will happen around 450-500F. One method of stripping seasoning is to run it through an oven self-cleaning cycle.
Try washing it.
So long as you’re not using the lye-based soaps your grandparents used to wash their dishes, you’re fine. Dishwashing detergent does not damage seasoning.
It is a myth that you can’t use dish detergent on cast iron. If it feels greasy and filthy, it is greasy and filfthy.
The truth behind the “no soap” myth is that we used to use lye-based soap for dishwashing. Lye does, indeed, break down seasoning. But we use surfactant-based detergents now, rather than actual soap. Detergents break down oils which are necessary for rust prevention, but they don’t damage seasoning. Just wipe them down with the thinnest layer of high temp oil before storing them, and you’re good to go.
Your boomer parents/grandparents couldn’t wash their cast iron with dish “soap”. You can.
The injustice I described was the conviction of the accused. None of the agencies described have any constitutional powers relevant to such an injustice. There was no “moving of the goal posts”: The agencies described are not relevant to the original scope.
You could make a good argument that the presiding judge and appellate courts also have some constitutional powers, however, the “separation of powers” drastically limits their ability to review legislated law. They can overturn legislated law on the basis of constitutionality, but they do not have the constitutional power to overturn a legislated law merely on the basis of irrationality or absurdity, as that is a legislative function and not a judicial one.
The juror is not restricted in this manner. The juror is free to determine that the legislators did not consider the specific circumstances of the accused when they prohibited the act for which the accused is charged. The juror is free to overrule the legislature on a case-by-case basis.
I wish I could find more products in retort packaging, but they aren’t very popular. Probably because they aren’t microwaveable.
It’s nice being able to throw the entree packet over the windshield defroster vents, and having a cheap, hot meal on the go.
Tell me again: What black guy did Rittenhouse kill?
I know about Joseph Rosenbaum, a white guy who attacked him and grabbed his gun when Rittenhouse didn’t run away fast enough. That attack was on camera.
I know about Anthony Huber, a white guy who was killed with a single shot to the chest while trying to hit him in the head with the trucks of a skateboard. That attack was also on camera.
I know about Gaige Grosskreutz, a white guy who tried to shoot at Rittenhouse, then feigned surrender, then suddenly pointed his gun again and tried to kill him, before being struck in the arm by rifle fire. That attack was also on camera.
And I know about the unidentified black man who tried to stomp on Rittenhouse’s head while he was on the ground, who Rittenhouse fired on once, but missed, and did not fire again as the man decided to flee rather than continue the attack.
But I don’t seem to recall the name of the black man that you’re referring to: The black man that Rittenhouse supposedly killed. I know he was the third dead guy on the night that Rittenhouse killed two people, but I can’t seem to recall his name.
and how that it’s your constitutional right
Just one clarification: It is a “power” and not a “right”. Jury service is a duty; an obligation to the accused that cannot be met by the government.
I have had to block several of these bullshit “helpful” bots.