Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VinylGator t1_jdg6dd5 wrote

Reply to comment by DeftApproximation in VIDEO: ATVs Blitz Providence on Tuesday by Previous_Floor

It’s quite astounding you literally said, yourself:

> A woman being pulled out of a car

(while omitting her children where in the car and that this has happened previously.)

To:

> Implying that we should shoot anyone that we feel threatened by

I might have missed this part. When was that exactly inferred or implied?

Perhaps her stance should be: “Nah, nah, naboo, boo! I’m calling the cops. You can’t do anything until they arrive!”

I’ll give in: Women in their car, with their children, must submit, less they be “murderers”.

Honestly, are you people even listening to yourselves?

3

DeftApproximation t1_jdgzghn wrote

The disconnect is the jump from riding recklessly to self defense.

Yes you have the right to defend yourself, even with a firearm. Why self defense and ATVs are in the same scenario is the logic problem. This the the problem with “whataboutism” arguments, when topics jump around things get conflated. If you keep them separate, things make sense.

Reckless riding on ATVs -> Cops should do more about them

Woman being assaulted -> Yea, she should be able to defend herself

The post that started with: Reckless riding on ATVs -> Then the immediate response of “This is why we need the 2nd amendment” (There’s the jump that is not helpful)

When you argue/debate, you can’t do those abrupt whataboutism turns to effectively change the subject. You need clear break points in the conversation line and context to set them up. Otherwise you get hyperbolic results like “Kids on ATVs -> Shoot them”

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_jdijpan wrote

I was referencing the article that had a list of incidents relating to these groups attacking people. That is why I said what I said. No one in their right mind thinks shooting these children and adults is okay for just riding and having fun

1

DeftApproximation t1_jdipm24 wrote

And that’s where you need to have clear breaks in the conversation because the logic line you presented makes it sound like you wanted to shoot kids on ATVs because the police *weren’t doing enough.

Putting some blame on GoLocalProv though because the way they structured that article immediately leads people into this line of thinking. (And why they’re mainly considered a muckraking shill of a newspaper)

A bunch of the quick little snippets were of police or the mayor saying they won’t do anything about ATV gangs. Which is not true.

Police are instructed not to chase them through the city because there is a much higher risk of damage, injury and death (to the police, gang member or especially bystanders) when it comes to a full sized police cruiser vs a smaller let nimbler ATV or a Bike. Police have to work to apprehend them in other ways.

It’s not a good answer but it’s all they’ve got atm.

Which is why it sounds insane when the logic line jumps from ATV riders to firearms in self defense. Should a woman be able to shoot in self defense when under physical assault? Yea, I would concede on that. Is that an equivalency I would bring into a discussion on reckless riding? No.

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_jdir4sh wrote

Def not reckless driving, I would say give someone life in prison for doing something like that.

2