Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #331018

Re: OT: Conservative sexism

From owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: OT: Conservative sexism
Date 2015-11-05 04:33 +0000
Organization O.W.L.
Message-ID <srioe9.mbjh83@rooftop.invalid> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <D25FC342.62BB1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <shgnmcu93.3@rooftop.invalid> <D260024C.62C41%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <sfhejd9.3a@rooftop.invalid> <D260257D.62C8F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 9:06 PM, in article sfhejd9.3a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/15, 2:57 PM, in article shgnmcu93.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ..
>>>>> Thank you. That shows the context: universal background checks. Now, of
>>>>> course, these would not stop all gun related suicides, but it is clearly
>>>>> tied to it. So including the suicides is not in any way dishonest.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But if you kill yourself with a gun you have been killed with a gun... so
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> sure what your point is in saying that should not be counted in a
>>>>>>> death-by-gun statistic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Because the suicides were not something that just happened to the persons.
>>>>>> They chose to kill themselves.  They were not victims of violence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You provided the context: universal background checks. And suicide gun
>>>>> deaths are very much related to that.
>>>> 
>>>> How is a background check going to detect a suicide in advance?  Have
>>>> these people committed suicide in the past?
>>> 
>>> Their mental health records are tied to background checks.
>> 
>> So?  How is that going to detect a suicide in advance?
> 
> Mental health check. Not perfect... but if there is a history of mental
> health disorders that should be taken into consideration. As I showed you
> with a link you snipped.
> 

Nothing is going to prevent said woman from jumping off a bridge or
slitting her wrists.  Why should access to a gun have any bearing?
If a woman's "mental health history" is not so terrible that it
keeps her from walking the streets, then she should not be deprived
of her Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


>> And what if it's a woman?
> 
> The sex of the person is not relevant in any way.
> 

Why did you snip the question of a woman's right to do as she pleases
with her own body?  Do you fear facing the hypocrisy you spout?

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:17 -0800
  Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:28 +0000
    Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:42 -0500
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 17:35 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 17:38 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0500
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 09:39 -0500
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0700
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 11:47 -0800
    Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:47 +0000
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:57 +0000
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 16:59 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:06 +0000
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 20:10 -0800
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:33 +0000
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:51 +0000
              Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 05:31 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:41 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 18:51 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:18 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 19:24 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:44 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 12:32 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-05 15:19 -0600
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 13:54 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:38 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 15:48 -0800
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:52 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:51 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 22:28 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-11-07 12:45 -0700
              Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:36 -0800
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:53 -0800

csiph-web