• frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    My point was that if the man is still ‘armed’, he hasn’t been ‘disarmed’, he just has one less (type of) gun. For example, if I told you that there was a man in my street with two guns, and then added that he’d now been disarmed (forcibly or otherwise), you would assume that he now had zero guns.

    • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      If a man had one of his arms cut off but kept the other one, you’d still call him an amputee. Similarly, if your guns are taken away from you by force, you have been disarmed. There are different degrees to this - I would argue that people who live in blue states are generally more disarmed than people living in red states - but that doesn’t change the fact that a disarmament has taken place.

      Your analogy would be more like asking if a man who put his arm inside his shirt could be called an amputee.