I wonder if anon left something out? Like, threating to kill her or the person(s) she cheated with. Or some of the weapons being illegal? Nah, it would have been included if they weren’t. Some people have high drama lives.
I’m very sure he was very amicable and reasonable about it. He’s on 4chan, after all.
FYI, women are just as capable of being terrible people as men are
Yes, but this is 4chan, so the odds aren’t in OP’s favor.
Fair enough
My understanding is there is not a single state with red flag laws that allow all weapons to be seized based on one person’s word. Well other than a doctor giving a professional diagnosis.
For everyone else you have to have some evidence. Either multiple people witnessing threats/harassment video, or text based evidence.
There is a definite bias. Especially, ESPECIALLY when it comes to partner violence. And EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY when it comes to gun violence.
This reads like anti red flag law propaganda anyway. Fake and incel recruitment.
Well red flag laws are bad, on the whole. There’s no need to resort to propaganda really. Mostly because they present a disincentive for people to try and find help or share how they’re feeling with others; not whatever bullshit the post is about.
Sure, but it isn’t their side we read.
Probably the part where this never happened, Anon is trying to get people mad at Red flag laws and women
well even if this is the whole truth it would be a testament to his character that his girlfriend would cheat on him and then lie to the police just so he gets in trouble
C’mon, he probably is leaving important details out, but “if people treat him badly, he must deserve it” is hardly fair.
In the hypothetical scenario that this is the whole truth, what you’re doing is victim blaming.
I didn’t intend to do that at all. The proverb I had in mind was “birds of a feather flock together”. It doesn’t mean he deserved it but I do think people who date people who would do this to them are probably not much better either. Also he wrote this on 4chan which is again, not a complete footprint of his personality but certainly a testament to his character.
“She’s probably right.” “Dude was probably violent.” “Easier to give up your guns than fight this in court” “Just give up your guns!”
Lmao wowww lemmy. Nobody here likes due process?
I think we just don’t like guns.
I like guns.
nice
but that’s bc you are a bad person.
Speak for yourself. God forbid men should have a hobby.
Are you really pretending this is about men having hobbies?
I use my rifles for hunting. Some people like collecting and sport shooting. Some have theirs for self defense in higher crime areas because they can’t afford better. So yeah?
It can be a hobby, sure. But men having a hobby isnt was was being discussed at all. Nobody cares about men having hobbies, the issue is when this hobby is a potential threat to other people. Isnt this rather obvious?
You know exactly as much as I do about this hypothetical situation. Girlfriend cheats. Guy breaks up. Girl calls cops. Guy gets guns confiscated. If your argument is nothing more than “Well maybe he deserved it” you’re an asshole.
Thats just not what im saying.
Eh, the cops are worse than the guns.
Don’t be disarming when gestapo in roaming the streets.
(But Anon probably supports the gestapo tho… 🤷♂️)
Lemmy wants it easier for cops to take away your guns, but simultaneously distrust the cops and want to abolish the police. So which is it lol?
But then again, this is 4chan so Anon probably is on the side of the tyrants anyways; they think they’re part of “the good ones”.
And they’re probably borderline homicidal, just looking at stats.
Due process is dead in America, homie
I’m pro gun, I’m just considering the statistics of a 4chan-er. Maybe that’s profiling, but I’m not a judge. He should certainly have his day in court, I’m just predicting the outcome.
Dunno, someone having guns to shoot normal people is a big red flag to me.
Someone having guns to shoot the boot soldiers of an unjust regime? All for it. Big green flag to me.
Those aren’t exactly normal people.
When I said, “someone having guns to shoot normal people”, I talked about the MAGA guys having those weapons.
Without context, this could be easily dismissed.
However, OP is posting on 4chan, so it’s likely he did pose a threat.
That said, it’s fake and gay.
Fake: anon has gf
Gay: anon writing fanfic flirting with male cops
gottem
Had
if you have multiple guns and can’t afford a lawyer you have kinda fucked your priorities
You either overestimate how much guns cost or underestimate how much lawyers cost.
Or any of the scenarios where op is no longer employed or self employed and between jobs. Court appointed attorneys are based on current income iirc.
LOL, I have shitloads of guns, unemployed. Ya got me! And it’s not like selling them would bring me any amount of lawyer time.
$1,000 AR-15, $800 used, at best. That’s 3 hours of lawyer time and a few emails. I couldn’t get $300 for most of my crappy guns.
The comments here are a good example of how the gun control movement is the left-wing counterpart to the pro-life movement. It’s origin lies in emotion, not reason. It’s filled with fallacious arguements and when that fails to convince someone, the movement tends to move towards snarky comments and outright hostility.
Evem those that are trying to be reasonable by drawing conclusions based on data almost always are using cherry-picked statistics that was fed by those trying to manipulate them.
It’s very amusing to read such things from outside the American hellscape. Well, “amusing.”
Let’s say eventually there comes a government overreach that a popular armed uprising puts down. Every day until that day, children die. Accidental death from firearms is one of the leading causes of death of children in your country. (Do you feel that pricking sensation in your neck and face or are you immune to shame?) If the rebellion doesn’t come soon enough (or at all) then you are underwater in terms of dead children. So, how long is that runway? How long do you get to keep killing children until you have to admit, fuck, this is costing us more than it’s worth?
HAVE YOU EVEN DONE THE MATH, or are you just working from feelings?
It’s a good argument, but it’s entirely flawed because American policy is that the children have no worth until they pay taxes.
To compare dead children to the cost of failing to check government power, we can reduce both to life-years lost:
🔫 Current Cost: Child Firearm Deaths in the U.S.
- ~2,000 preventable child gun deaths/year
- ~60 life-years lost per death
- 120,000 life-years lost annually
- Over 30 years: ~3.6 million life-years lost
🏛️ Hypothetical Benefit: Preventing Tyranny
Assume a worst-case scenario:
- Authoritarian collapse kills 10 million (based on 20th-century examples)
- Avg. age at death: ~40 → ~35 life-years lost
- 10M deaths × 35 = 350 million life-years lost
Estimate risk:
- Without civilian arms: 0.5% chance over 30 years
- With civilian arms: 0.4% chance
- These figures are speculative; there’s no empirical support that civilian gun ownership reduces the risk of tyranny—many stable democracies have strict gun control.
In fact, high civilian armament may reduce stability:
- Greater availability of weapons increases the lethality of civil unrest, crime, and domestic terrorism.
- Armed polarization can accelerate breakdown during political crises, as seen in failed or fragile states.
- States may respond with harsher repression, escalating rather than deterring authoritarian outcomes.
📊 Expected Value Calculation
- Without arms: 0.005 × 350M = 1.75 million life-years at risk
- With arms: 0.004 × 350M = 1.2 million life-years at risk
- Net benefit of arms: ~550,000 life-years saved (generous estimate)
📉 Conclusion
Even with favorable assumptions:
- Civilian firearms cost ~3.6M life-years (due to preventable child deaths)
- And prevent only ~550K life-years (via marginally lower tyranny risk)
Bottom line: The ongoing cost vastly outweighs the hypothetical benefit, and high armament may worsen long-term stability rather than protect it.
In 2015 I’d agree.
In 2025? Nah, look at what’s happening around the US.
Dems are losing votes because of the guns issue, drop the gun issue, along with promoting a progressive platform and that’s easily winning elections.
In 2025? Nah, look at what’s happening around the US.
Record gun deaths?
fascism
You really think you can trust the police?
ACAB
The only way out of this is self-defence militias, but unfortunately, people left-of-center have already been disarming themselves while the far-right have been stocking up on ammunition, all thanks to the anti-gun rhetoric.
Tongue in cheek of course but it still makes a point. The facts-over-feelings crowd has to show that the benefit of firearms outweigh the very observable negative consequences, and they cannot. So they are arguing feelings, not facts.
While preventable child deaths are obviously terrible, I feel like this could be overextended.
Like, how many child deaths has McDonald’s caused vs guns. I’m too lazy to do the math like the other guy, but I’d presume it’s comparable. (Although I suppose by the time it catches up to them they’re no longer children.)
Idk, you see things like, “leading cause of death in children” and it makes the number seem huge, but it’s less than 100 kids a year. And it looks like around 400/yr die from drowning in swimming pools. So if we really care about the children, we should bad swimming pools? They kill 4x the number of kids than guns.
I’m not saying guns are great. But using child deaths as part of the argument just feels like a great excuse to ban literally anything you just don’t like.
Accidental deaths from firearms can be reduced by making people get obligatory training and requiring storage in a gun safe, when not carried.
Okay? So how many years does that push the “break even point”? Do you see how this doesn’t engage with my point in the slightest?
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The problem is that the system is open to abuse. Anyone who wants to get back at someone can make up allegations and have their guns taken away with no due process.
But on the other hand if you make this process too difficult you can allow someone who is actually dangerous to keep their guns.
I mean if someone makes death threats to someone else they should absolutely have their guns taken away.
The thing is, this isn’t shown in the original post. Also, making death threats on its own is illegal, red flag laws aren’t required if the person making the report has proof.
Said victim could even get a restraining order if they were worried about violence, which won’t completely assure safety but will go down a process that actually uses due process and doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.
I never said that Anon made any death threat and the concern you are raising is covered in the rest of my comment.
I mean if someone makes death threats
This is a clear suggestion that Anon was making death threats. Don’t be a liar
I find if interesting that you’ve read that first paragraph and interpreted it as a suggestion of one thing, then read the paragraph immediately below it that could have suggested the opposite, and not only completely ignore that second paragraph, but also fail to realize that they were hypothetical situations to explain a point. Everyone understood that but you.
Sure, force a specific interpretation of my words that you’ve specifically cherry picked to make you sound right so you can feel better about yourself. It ain’t gonna be true and we’ll both know that whether you like it or not, but judging from the fact that you just came back 4 days later for this, I don’t think this fact will bother you. This is a 4 day old thread and nobody is left here to witness the level of mental gymnastics you’re capable of anyway. Go ahead, treat yourself.
then read the paragraph immediately below it that could have suggested the opposite,
Your second paragraph did not suggest the opposite
You claim you were deliberately being vague, then get mad at someone allegedly misinterpreting what you said? The solution is to not be vague, not to gaslight people by claiming you didn’t say something you absolutely did. Grow up.
1- The second paragraph could very well be interpreted as suggesting that hypothetical threat allegations being fraudulent and therefore suggest the opposite. This is downright bad faith from your part.
2- I’m being mad at someone calling me a “liar” and trying to continue to force their own erroneous interpretation of my own words after I immediately clarified it for them and who keeps doubling down on it even after further explanation.
3- You call it “vague” and yet still claim that I “absolutely did” mean what you think I meant, once again giving yourself a completely unwarranted benefit of the doubt on the matter against the now overwhelming evidence.
4- Everyone else interpreted it correctly except you.
5- Why the fuck would I even accuse Anon of making death threats when they were never mentioned in the article to begin with? It is much telling that this is where your mind went immediately.
6- You came here looking for something to get angry about and thought you found it by diagonally reading through my comment and jumped to conclusions. Now that I called you out on it you decided that it had to be my fault instead and are going further down the rabbit hole of inventing all sorts of malicious intents from my part.
7- You don’t have to admit it to me, only yourself. Because you will be blocked as soon as I have sent this. You will be the first one I’ve ever blocked on Lemmy over a comment argument too. I thought I had left this crap behind me when I dumped Reddit years ago but some seem to have followed. Which by the way also refutes your new unsubstantiated accusation of having made my original “deliberately vague” as if I had created some sort of trap to attract people like you. You can now rest assured that I don’t want people like you in my life.
I don’t avoid guns due to a fear of crime. I avoid guns due to a fear of negligence.
Every single day, someone in my family does something negligent, but ultimately harmless. Oops. Now there’s an extra dirty dish. Oops. Broke a coaster. Oops. Dirty towel. Oops. Got sprayed with water.
Putting a gun in that situation would be pretty dangerous.
I suppose some households could keep guns responsibly. Mine could not, despite my personal practices.
I don’t understand how you justify in your head adding guns into any of those situations you listed.
If you own guns, you’re supposed to have a secure way to store them. Especially if you have kids. While some people do leave guns sitting around the house, that is strongly discouraged.
You’re supposed to keep guns inside a safe unless you’re about to use it such as going to a range or hunting. And best practice is to keep ammo secured in a separate safe as an extra measure. And when you are handling a gun, you always check if it’s loaded and follow the 4 rules of gun safety
Thank you for proving my point.
Given how nonsensical your first comment was, I don’t think you had a point
They were talking about the dangers of negligence. You countered with how guns can be relatively safe if one follows safety guidelines.
The ‘negligence’ part is referring to those that don’t follow guides. By listing all the guides and rules to make guns safe, they probably mean you prove their point by showing the burden of responsibility guns require (and thus the risk when irresponsible people don’t meet them).
I’m not sure if you got to see their comments before they were deleted, but I recall their comment being a bit weirder than that. Things like “sometimes my family forgets to pick their wet towels off the floor. What happens if you add a gun to that?”.
As the second part of your comment, yeah I see your point. That being said, the rules of gun safety aren’t as huge of a hurdle as people seem to think they are. I think it’s more that some people are repelled by any form of friction when starting a new activity.
Uh, there is reason in not wanting people to be shot by a culture of fear.
Look up overall crime statistics for both countries that restrict firearm access and those who don’t. You’ll find that overall violent crime ends up being proportional to the countries’ midi coefficient (a measurement of economic inequality). Firearm availability mainly changes the proportion of violent crimes involving firearms vs overall violent crime.
Like I said, most of the statistics you see are cherry-picked to give an overly simplistic view of crime to distract from the fact that economic inequality is a huge correlating factor
While income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is positively correlated with violent crime, firearm availability has been shown to independently influence both the rate and lethality of violence.
According to Fajnzylber, Lederman, and Loayza (2002, The Journal of Law and Economics), there is a significant cross-national association between income inequality and homicide rates. However, firearm access is not merely a determinant of the method used in violent crime—it also affects the frequency and outcome of such incidents.
Data from the Small Arms Survey and the Global Burden of Disease project indicate that countries with high rates of civilian firearm ownership (e.g., the United States) experience substantially higher rates of firearm homicide, suicide, and accidental gun death than peer nations with stricter gun regulations (e.g., the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia), despite similar or lower Gini coefficients.
For example, the U.S. firearm homicide rate was 6.1 per 100,000 in 2021 (CDC WONDER), compared to 0.5 per 100,000 in Canada and less than 0.1 in countries like Japan and the U.K. This disparity persists even when controlling for overall violent crime or economic inequality.
Moreover, studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet have found that the presence of firearms in a home significantly increases the risk of homicide and suicide, particularly among women and children (see Kellermann et al., 1993; Anglemyer et al., 2014).
Therefore, while inequality is an important factor, firearm regulation has a demonstrable and independent effect on both the incidence and deadliness of violent crime. The distinction between type and frequency does not eliminate the public health implications of firearm prevalence.
You present yourself as rational while dismissing emotion as weakness. But emotions like shame, fear, and the impulse to protect others are not failures of reason. They are essential to moral awareness.
The need to maintain rigid rational detachment is itself emotionally driven. It often reflects a desire to avoid guilt or to preserve control. That isn’t objectivity, it’s fragility disguised as discipline.
The gun control movement is not left-wing. The left supports gun ownership overwhelmingly.
Gun suicides are a huge problem, so there is a legitimate need for interventions in the appropriate circumstances. Suicidal ideation is also usually an impulsive or fleeting idea, so removing the means of suicide only temporarily can be a solution to that temporary problem.
The Swiss saw suicide rates drop with reduced access to firearms in shrinking their military, and the Israeli military has seen weekend suicide rates drop by simply having troops check in their weapons into armories over weekends, without a corresponding change in weekday suicides.
Anti-suicide nets on bridges work very well, too, because simply making a suicide more inconvenient, or require a bit more planning, is often enough to just make it so that the suicide attempt never happens.
So yeah. I’m generally against restrictions on firearm ownership or access for people who can be responsible with them, but I’m 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence. And, like, convicted criminals, too.
but I’m 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this. When the police recieve a report, they end up seizing the guns without any due process, and the owners has to sue to get them back.
The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this.
It’s my understanding that every state with a red flag law imposes a procedure similar to involuntary commitment: a court weighing evidence presented to it under penalty of perjury, with a heavy presumption that these orders are only for extremely rare situations.
Florida’s procedure, for example, requires a petition from the police to the court, and requires the police to show the court that the person is suffering from a serious mental illness, has committed acts of violence, or has credibly threatened acts of violence (to self or others). In ordinary cases the person whose guns are being taken away has an opportunity to be heard in court before the judge decides, but in emergency cases the court can order the guns be taken away for up to 14 days, and requires an opportunity for the person to be heard in court.
So in practice, in Florida, someone would have to convince the police they’re a danger, and then provide enough evidence that the police can persuade a judge. Private citizens aren’t allowed to petition the court directly, and the process requires proof of a serious enough set of facts to justify taking guns away.
If you can afford a bunch of guns there’s no chance in hell you’re getting approved for a public defender. Good luck anon
Wtf? Cops just come and take your shit away because some girl said so?
I appreciate the 100% complete, unbiased and unvarnished picture of the situation Green OP (Gropey?) has painted for us.
Story: Girlfriend cheats This guy: Maybe he deserved it
Weird take. If you ain’t happy with your SO you try and deal with it or you fuck off. Cheating just makes everything worse.
My colleague cheated on her man and now everything is worse. Whatever situation caused her to do it, now the situation is even harder to resolve. No one is gonna go “yeah okay, I probably deserved that. Let’s move on”, haha!
Funny to read the comments. I don’t want to judge anyone as Im not american and I grew up without even touching a real gun.
Its just amazing how big role guns play in US culture. I can’t imagine owning one, but most americans can’t live without them. Its very bizarre.
It’s not most Americans. It’s about a third (which is still huge) and less than half of the population living in a gun owning household.
Then there’s a spectrum of how “important” guns are culturally. There are in my experience 3 categories of gun owners.
- People who own a gun or two. They may take it to the range or hunt, but mostly it’s tucked securely away and they don’t think about it or use it.
2)Then there are collectors and enthusiasts. They enjoy firearms as a hobby. They have multiple. They watch firearms videos on social media. They go to gun shows and might join a club related to the hobby.
3)Then there are the paranoid psychopaths for whom gun ownership and the insistence that they could have to defend themselves at any time is constantly at the forefront of their mind. They wish they had a reason to shoot someone and may end up shooting someone anyway.
I’m a #2 except I dislike gun shows. Everything’s overpriced and there’s right-wing merch everywhere. Bought a canteen from a Proud Boy at one. Didn’t know it until I overheard him talking to another guy. Tried to investigate him later, couldn’t get a name.
deleted by creator
Sorry bad phrasing, by most I meant a lot of americans. Thanks for correcting me :)
I am somewhat familiar with the type of gun owners from US media and movies.
For me the most mind-blowing thing is how easy is to get a gun at some places. I just imagine some shady people I know in my country, even some of my family members and can’t imagine them having access to guns :D
It perpetuates itself. If someone thinks there is a significant probability a burglar might have a gun, getting a gun themselves can increase their chance of survival. This is even ignoring the actual culture around it, where people want guns “just to have them”.
You don’t own a gun in case of a burglar having a gun. It’s in case of home invasion period. I’m not going to wait around to determine if they’re armed or not and I’m not going to restrict myself to some lesser means of stopping them just because they aren’t. I didn’t create this situation and I am not going to accept risk to myself to preserve the life of some asshole who doesn’t even respect me enough not to break into my home.
Isn’t this just a vicious cycle? You own a gun, because other people also have access to guns. The burglar might bring a gun, because the home owner possibly has a gun, etc
I don’t own a gun, I am 100x more likely to use it on myself than need it for self defense where I’m at. But the scenario I’m describing, whether or not the home invader has a gun or not doesn’t matter, the simple fact that they are invading your home in the first place justifies lethal force. You could be injured/killed by them even without them having a gun so the safest option for the resident is shoot them immediately. The resident should not have to accept any level of risk whatsoever in dealing with this situation. You’re not getting a gun because someone might attack you with a gun. You’re getting a gun because someone might attack you.
Kinda. It’s also a remnant of the old west. Guns were freedom, protection, power, etc.
It would be much more effective to curb crime by meeting everyone’s basic needs than giving everyone a gun.
But dumb Americans don’t know any other way. They are just too self-centered and absorbed to think about anyone else.
It would be much more effective to curb crime by meeting everyone’s basic needs than giving everyone a gun.
If crime is reduced by meeting everyone’s needs, then it shouldn’t matter whether people have guns or not. So let’s have strong social safety nets and quit pissing people off by taking away their hobbies and property.
This is the horror story for red flag laws existing.
Now imagine the horror stories of red flag laws not existing.
You don’t even have to imagine, just listen to one of the million true crime podcasts. Then multiply all those cases by 5 for all the minority women who they don’t talk about.
Can afford a bunch of guns and ammo, but can’t afford a lawyer to defend yourself in court?
Strange priorities
I mean you can buy a gun for 200 USD at Walmart. Lawyers cost 200 USD per hour.
Do you really believe that “all my guns, bullets and reloading material” is cheaper than a lawyer for a hearing like this? In my mind that phrase represents thousands of dollars worth of gun stuff, and a lawyer who can represent you in a TRO hearing might be about $500-1500 ($200/hour, maybe 2-8 hours of work for that first hearing).
I mean they already own the guns. They can’t even sell them to hire a lawyer because they were taken.
If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you. 🤷♀️
If you can’t see the difference between buying one gun every x months and paying a lawyer 4 to 5 figures all in one go that’s on you.
You’re off by an order of magnitude. I’m saying the lawyer would cost between 3 to low 4 figures, generally less than a single gun.
Time is linear and you can’t sell what was taken from you.
The ownership of the gun hasn’t changed. That owner can sell the gun even if they can’t physically possess it. Federal law requiring relinquishment of firearms (like upon conviction of a disqualifying felony or domestic violence misdemeanor) explicitly provides for selling the guns as a way to comply with the order. Each state is different in their rules on selling weapons already in the police’s possession, and states require that transfer to go through an FFL, but most do not.
Look, I’m a gun owner. And I think part of being a responsible gun owner means having the financial means to actually deal with the consequences of owning, and potentially using, that firearm. I think it’s a defect of American gun culture that there are so many people with concealed carry licenses who wouldn’t even know how to contact a lawyer if they were to actually fire a gun in a real situation, whether it’s a legitimate self defense situation or a negligent discharge. Gun ownership carries important responsibilities, and there is such a thing as someone who is too poor to responsibly own a gun (much less enough to where the phrase “all my guns” carries its own implicit meaning).
You do you. But I challenge you to go and look at gun prices at your local Walmart in the USA. Not every guy you buy has to be an FN-Scar 17 in pricing.
Turn around a look at how much it costs to defend yourself criminally in the USA.
Guns are about $200 at Walmart.
Robust criminal defense is about 30-40 hours.
Also good luck selling a gun you don’t have in your possession. Try going to a gun shop and saying “give me the cash now, I promise to give you the gun when the police give it back to me”
You might legally have that right but practically… good luck.
We do agree that you should be responsible for your actions. But looking at the meme here nothing wrong was done.
defend yourself criminally
Robust criminal defense
These court proceedings aren’t criminal cases. They’re more like hearings on restraining orders and things of that nature. Like I said, this is generally less than a single day’s work for a lawyer, 2-5 hours.
I’m comparing middle of the road prices for handguns ($500-$1200) to middle of the road prices for a lawyer who can handle one of these hearings ($500-$1500). I still think it’s financially irresponsible to own more than 3 guns and not have a $1000 emergency fund.
Well? How did this story end? I can’t find it in the 4plebs archive.
Anon can easily get a lawyer pro-bono, with contingency fee, who would nail a case like this to a cross.
In civil court, because she defamed him causing real and considerable loss of property, and psychological harm.
As for defending, Anon hasn’t really outlined any laws he might have broken…? Court for what? Just go to the trial and explain your side clearly and concisely: never a threat to anybody, cheating girlfriend made a false report.
lol I’d love to meet the lawyer who would be willing to defend a 4channer on contingency.
I’d like to hear her version
Right? I’m sure the BF is a very well adjusted person that just happens to post on 4chan
I mean more often than not, when a woman accuses a man of doing horrible things and the man denies it, the woman is right
