Hey look, the exception that makes the “pretty much no one” part right! All the people in the American northern territories (Alaska, Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik) don’t represent one million in population out of 372 millions for the US + Canada, that’s less than 0.26% of the population or “pretty much no one” and not all of them need one (my uncle used to live in Nunavik, never owned a gun in his life), not all of them are legally allowed to own them and not all of them want one either… Wow, that % is getting smaller and smaller now, isn’t it?
Spend some time in class to learn reading comprehension and maths before making comments like this.
By your very own logic basically no that owns a gun commits a crime with them. Fewer than 500,000 reported gun related crimes against over 100 million gun owners in the us. For a .05% gun offense rate by gun owners, and that percentage gets smaller when you consider how many of those are repeat offenders and people illegally owning a fire arm.
Seems like the math is saying its not guns, but maybe something else these criminal offenders have in common that +99.95% don’t share with them…
Now now, don’t go bringing math like “banning ARs would be ineffective because all rifles only account for 500/60,000 gun deaths/yr for a rate of 0.2% of our gun deaths” or “Harvard, in an attempt to debunk Kleck and Lott’s estimates at defensive gun use /yr and ‘disprove the good guy with a gun theory,’ have put forth ‘a more realistic estimate of 100,000 dgu/yr,’ which is still 40,000 more than our gun deaths/yr including suicide and 88,000 more than intentional firearm homicides/yr” into this.
Me: Pretty much no one need guns in rich countries
You: Go to Alaska! They need guns!
Me: Yeah, they might need them, they’re covered by the “pretty much no one” in my first message
You: Rambling about gun crime stats like it proves something about people needing guns
I could have the same argument with someone saying they need a pickup truck or a 5000 sq ft house in the city. There’s a very big difference between wanting and needing and pretty much no one in rich countries need guns today.
I never brought up crime because that’s irrelevant to what I said and you doing it just proves how irrational you’ve become when it comes to this subject. You’re so used to just typing a bunch of stuff on your keyboard whenever someone says they don’t like guns that now that you see someone mentioning that it’s not a need (never mentioning my personal stance on the subject) you’re unable to make the difference, to you it’s just an anti gun message because anything that doesn’t go “yay guns!” is anti guns in your mind and you just can’t help it, you try and pull the discussion in the direction you know and talk about crime and homicide rates.
Again, it’s a discussion about needs and it wasn’t started by me, I just added that it doesn’t just apply to boomers.
How do you define “need” in this context? I’ve “needed” a gun before, when a dude pulled a knife on me in a walmart parking lot I moved my shirt and grabbed the grip, didn’t even draw it, and with that action he decided to turn and calmly walk away instead of stab me and my then-gf. Had I not had it he could have taken my shit, sliced my belly open (which if you’ve never seen that, gruesome, happened to a bartender I dished for one night when he tried to break up a bar fight), or forced my girlfriend at the time into his car for god knows what, instead, he decided “maybe the next one,” and I have a hard time believing that had nothing to do with me grabbing the grip. Did I “need” it because he was clearly threatening our lives? Did I not because I wasn’t stabbed yet? How do you define “need?”
Oh and just to be clear in case you (like me) neglect to read usernames sometimes: I am a different person.
You’re making assumptions about what would have happened after you had emptied your wallet/your girlfriend’s purse so let’s ignore that.
The same kind of crimes happen in countries where guns aren’t prevalent and, if anything, in lower proportions with less victims of physical violence and that person might as well just have jumped on you to not give you the time to pull out your gun vs ran away with your money as soon as you gave it to them. At close range they had the advantage with their knife.
The need here isn’t guns but social programs to help the people who might resort to those means to live.
You’re making asumptions about why he was threatening our lives. He didn’t say give me your wallet, he could’ve wanted to kidnap and brutally rape then murder my ex. Fact of the matter is we have no way of knowing. It was a white dude in a trump shirt, does that change your mind? In any case, I suppose we’re ignoring all the assumptions and going with just the facts, yes? So in that case all we know is that he threatened our lives with a deadly weapon, what we don’t know is “why.” Turns out, when people threaten you with a deadly weapon, having one of your own greatly increases the liklihood of putting up a meaningful resistance regardless of the level of attempted victimization.
See, here you’re saying that other countries are less violent. That’s great, and it may be true, BUT, and here’s the kicker: I don’t live there, I live here. Here, where the rates of violence are higher, that is supposed to make me willing to be victimized at the hands of those without morals? Actually quite the opposite, I have morals, I can trust me. Know what I can’t trust? Other people or my government to keep me safe. Not only do criminals typically choose a time when the police aren’t visible to attack you, thus making them effective more as insurance agents who come after the problem, even if they are there they have no responsibility to defend you (Warren V DC, Castle Rock V Gonzales). So it is left upon me to either A) Change the entire country singlehandedly or B) Protect my own goddamn ass. Guess which one is remotely possible.
At close range they have the advantage with the knife IF* I don’t move. The Tueller principle (what you didn’t know you just quoted,) states that an attacker armed with a knife can get you within 21tf before you draw if you stand still. The drill is taught to teach you to move laterally as you draw, not to say guns are useless lmao. Fun fact you can shoot a guy who is within contact distance too.
The need is both. When those social programs work we won’t even need gun control, if they don’t, I need the guns to protect me against those it didn’t work on.
The discussion has never been about what you need to do, the discussion has been about if guns are a necessity, the answer is no and you keep proving that it’s mental healthcare that is a necessity. If you only want a gun so you can protect yourself then it’s not a necessity, not having to protect yourself is the necessity.
Except that the only thing that kept me from getting a possible fatal wound was the presence of a firearm OR his will. Neither of us know how that would’ve played out, but I know what I’d bet on and it is me defending my goddamn self like I did. You can make assumptions as well as I can, but neither of us know. The discussion on guns being a necessity? The answer is yes. Now we’re at an impass. Protecting yourself is a necessity depending on locale and also “not being a victim.”
We need to solve those by fixing the actual poblems not just “guns gone problems still there everything’s fine ignore the crime.”
“Pretty much” in THIS country mass shootings only account for .001% of gun deaths. Mostly suicide. You have been misled. Furthermore we have 40,000 more devensive firearms uses than gun deaths, and 88,000 more than our rate of intentional homicides. 100k DGU, 60k total gun deaths, 12k only intentional homicide. And that is the low estimate of DGU by Harvard which had an agenda and it was to “disprove the good guy with a gun myth.” Yet, “unfortunately,” all it proved is that while Kleck and Lott accounted for defensive display, Harvard only included verifiable incidents based off police reports, and STILL “good guys with guns” defend themselves more than people even kill themselves with guns or commit crimes with them respectively.
You can look up that harvard study for yourself but you won’t anyway so I won’t bother linking.
You’re wrong my dude. Guns aren’t necessary where you are, sure, but other places are different. Not every human has an identical experience on this earth as you. You are priveleged, and you sit in your ivory tower judging those less fortunate than you. I hope one day you can learn this.
How are guns protecting people exactly? Shouldn’t the USA be exemplary instead of the worst rich country if guns were preventing anything? 🤔 Have you thought that maybe the issue also comes from people who think like you and the more firearms are accessible, the easier it is to kill someone in a moment that would just pass without any homicide happening if people didn’t have access to firearms?
Well, 100,000 defensive gun uses is more than 12,000 intentional homicides by 88,000, that’s how. That’s 88,000 times someone DID NOT become a victim of violence because THEY had a gun of their own, and that is the low estimate.
Ok, that’s the number for the USA, how does the actual crime rate compare to other countries? If the number show that even with more guns there’s more crime then it’s clear that guns aren’t the solution, isn’t it? Wouldn’t your goal be that both those number become as low as possible?
You know, there’s more to gun violence than homicides and experts agree that they’re used more for crime then self defense. Adding more and more to the mix is just repeating the cold war at a human level, it’s not fixing anything.
Here’s the thing about other countries: There are other variables! Crazy I know, but things like healthcare and wealth inequality and our shit ass school system that more often than not syphons money to the school board while the rest of the country suffers, actually also play a part. Funny how that works.
Source on that? Cause by everything I’ve seen the estimate of crime with gun regardless of injury is 80,000/yr which is still less than 100,000.
Alright, I’m glad to see that we agree that what’s needed isn’t guns then, it’s to solve the underlying issues. Happy to see you changed your mind. Good talk! Have fun!
Lol, no, me making fun of your ridiculous definition of “need” is the complete opposite of agreeing. I prefer the definition the rest of the world uses, y’know, the nondelusional people.
noun A condition or situation in which something must be supplied in order for a certain condition to be maintained or a desired state to be achieved. noun Something required or wanted; a requisite. noun Necessity; obligation. noun A condition of poverty or misfortune. intransitive verb To be under the necessity of or the obligation to. intransitive verb To have need of; require. intransitive verb To have an obligation (to do something). intransitive verb To be subject (to an action) by obligation. intransitive verb To want to be subject to. intransitive verb To be in need or want. intransitive verb To be necessary.
Not one of those mentions “will die without.” That’s you.You aren’t the arbiter of definitions no matter what your delusions of grandeur convince you of.
OOOHHH I get it, I don’t agree with your point so you must mean you’ve come around to see that the definition of the word itself actually doesn’t support your argument at all and now you agree with me.
Guns aren’t necessary where you are, sure, but other places are different. Not every human has an identical experience on this earth as you. You are priveleged, and you sit in your ivory tower judging those less fortunate than you. I hope one day you can learn this.
Again, no, you didn’t prove that guns are a necessity.
Eating is a necessity, clothings are a necessity, people in your own country don’t have a gun and make it through life and die of natural causes, that’s all the proof you need to know that no, guns aren’t a necessity, they’re a desire that you and others have.
To make it so you don’t desire them what is needed is a solution to the social issues that make you want a gun.
Another proof that guns aren’t necessary for that is that there’s already more guns in the USA than people and it didn’t stop that person from trying to attack you even though odds were that you would be carrying. Increasing the number of people who own or carry a gun won’t improve things, there’s already more than in any other rich country and the issue is still worse.
We’re not even talking about the statistical improbability of the situation you’re basing your opinion on, if you go by that logic you should be arguing in favor of getting rid of all guns because of the odds that you’ll get murdered with one and you should never take a car ever again because of the odds that you’ll get into an accident and you shouldn’t have a kid because of the odds that your girlfriend will die in labor or your kid will die at a young age (especially in your country in both cases) and the list goes on and on…
Is a fire extinguisher a necessity when there is no fire? Is a hammer a necessity when you have no nails? No, but you can’t conjure one out of your asshole when you do need one. You have to be prepared and have the tool for the job before you need it or you’re shit out of luck. It’s kinda like that.
Plenty of people who have food also die, does that mean food isn’t a necessity? You don’t need food currently if you aren’t currently hungry, does that make it not a necessity?
If it isn’t needed for defense then a ban also isn’t needed, because crime is what you “defense” from, so if there is no crime why ban them? Let the IDPA continue.
odds were that you would be carrying.
Actually, though rates of gun ownership are growing (fastest growing new groups are black women, women [all], and gays), still only less than 50% actually owns all those guns, and less than 25% carry them. Odds are that I wouldn’t have one even in America, but he bet wrong. Don’t get me wrong, that 50% owns more guns and ammo then your country’s entire military, but that is still only 50% of people and not quite even that, it’s more like 48%. Turns out though, yeah, criminals aren’t too happy about having one pointed at 'em, and I know you support the violent criminals bent on victimizing people they perceive as weaker, but I’m on the other side.
because of the odds that you’ll get murdered with one
See, that’s the thing, this isn’t true. Our defensive gun use per year is comservatively estimated by Harvard (in an anti gun hit piece against the “myth” of the “good guy with a gun”) at 100,000 per year. Well, our rate of intentional firearm homicide is only 12,000 a year. I believe you’ll find that 100,000> 12,000 by 88,000.
never take a car ever again because of the odds that you’ll get into an accident
Been in 4, used to drive pizza. Airbags, seatbelts. Manual safeties, trigger safties, grip safties, not pointing the gun at things that aren’t targets, not putting your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to fire. Safties all around.
You’re so hell bent on defending your right to have a gun that you forget the definition of words. Again, if they were necessary then you wouldn’t have people around you that didn’t own them because all of them would be dead, that’s what needing something implies. Stop eating food for a couple of months and you’ll understand the difference between desires and needs.
Just because the ownership rate is going up doesn’t mean people need one, it could simply mean people are scared and the population is divided so they try to find a way to reassure themselves, just like you’re doing, but the need is to solve the underlying issue.
Like someone who’s depressed, they can start taking anti depressants and live like that for the rest of their life, but what they actually need is help to solve the underlying issue, if that doesn’t happen all that leads to is more and more people on anti depressants.
It had been going down from '93-2016 and gun sales were rising. Remind me, did anything else happen in this country in and since 2016? Anything that maybe could have contributed to violence like political or economic issues? There are more than one variable at play in real life situations, not everything can be boiled down to “gun,” it’s the same thinking as the racists who try to boil down everything to “black,” it’s just narrow minded and refusing to look at the bigger picture, like the actual causes of violence in the case of guns, or overpolicing of black neighborhoods because of racist police.
Lmao people do die, every single day, because they were the victim of a violent crime and lacked the appropriate defensive tools. That fits your definition of “need” which hinges solely on survival. By that logic, literally all anyone ever needs is food, water, and shelter, even when said shelter is actively on fire from the food you cooked, then they don’t need a fire extinguisher, because it isn’t potable, edible, nor good building material. You’re being obtuse and you know it lol.
Glad to see you understand that what’s a necessity is to solve the other issues that lead to violence, so we agree that guns aren’t a necessity to the vast majority of people, some just make the choice to want a gun to protect themselves while others don’t (proof that guns aren’t needed).
Lol, no, me making fun of your ridiculous definition of “need” is the complete opposite of agreeing. I prefer the definition the rest of the world uses, y’know, the nondelusional people.
noun A condition or situation in which something must be supplied in order for a certain condition to be maintained or a desired state to be achieved. noun Something required or wanted; a requisite. noun Necessity; obligation. noun A condition of poverty or misfortune. intransitive verb To be under the necessity of or the obligation to. intransitive verb To have need of; require. intransitive verb To have an obligation (to do something). intransitive verb To be subject (to an action) by obligation. intransitive verb To want to be subject to. intransitive verb To be in need or want. intransitive verb To be necessary.
Not one of those mentions “will die without.” That’s you.You aren’t the arbiter of definitions no matter what your delusions of grandeur convince you of.
OOOHHH I get it, I don’t agree with your point so you must mean you’ve come around to see that the definition of the word itself actually doesn’t support your argument at all and now you agree with me.
I thought you agreed with me after proving times and times again that guns aren’t a necessity, funny that… It’s funny because all that you said pointed to that from the get go… Weird.
You never said how people manage to go their whole life without them if they’re a necessity , I mean, if something is necessary then you would expect everyone to have it, right? Oxford defines the word necessity as “the fact of being required or indispensable” and I mean… If something is indispensable then it’s impossible to go without it… Heck, even the guy who attacked you didn’t consider them a necessity cuz that’s what he would have pointed at you if he did, right? Heck, how can the government decides that some people can’t get to have something that is indispensable? That’s exactly what gun control is, isn’t it? Let’s think about things that are indispensable… Government making it illegal for some people to eat? Impossible… To be clothed? No… To breathe? As if…
Hell… If they’re a necessity you should be against gun control and you should be fighting to get a gun in the hand of every single human being! What are people doing without something that is necessary??? 😱
How do people go a whole lifetime without swinging a fire extinguisher? Their house never catches on fire. BUT if it does catch fire, the fire extinguisher becomes a necessity because it is the tool they need for the task at hand. How do people go their whole lives without needing a gun? Luck. You don’t get to choose when or if you’re violently attacked just as you don’t usually choose when your house burns down (save for arsonists), and I bet most people would choose not to be, but the attacker also gets a say in this. You may not need one right now but if a more physically fit guy is attempting to kill you, it then becomes necessary unless you want to just die. If you’re lucky enough not to have that happen to you ever in life, great! But you don’t get to decide that. Same for seatbelts, how can someone go their entire life without needing a seatbelt? They never get in a car crash. However, if they do get in a car crash, the seatbelt becomes a necessity. Same for airbags.
Clothes are a necessity? Nuh uh, if you never leave your house you can be naked forever, get a WFH job and order groceries. You don’t need clothes to live. See? That’s your argument. It is patently ridiculous.
What doesn’t work with your comparison with fire extinguishers and seat belts is that there’s no drawbacks to them and there’s no alternative permanent solution (except public transit, but even there seatbelts wouldn’t be a bad thing to have). People also go without both for all their lives so we’re very far from food, love, water and so on.
Right now you’re arguing guns are a necessity like you were saying fire extinguishers are a necessity because of pyromaniacs or seatbelts are necessary because of people who commit suicide by car crash, two statistically insignificant events, so insignificant that if they were the only reason things caught on fire/people died in car crashes, neither fire extinguishers or seatbelts would exist. The way you interpret statistics I bet your retirement plan is to win the lottery!
It’s ok you lived a traumatic event that shaped your vision of the world, what your need isn’t a gun, it’s too see a psychologist, just like the world you live in, it doesn’t need more weapons, it needs more social support so people don’t want to own weapons.
And yes, clothings are worn by people all over the world even in climates where people could go naked at all times and are at the base of the pyramid of needs.
Unfortunately the definition I’m required to work within to suit your narrow brain is “will die without = need” you don’t NEED a seatbelt if you don’t get in a crash, you can’t move the goalposts NOW and say “well theres no drawbacks.” Drawbacks are NOT in your definition of necessity.
People ALSO go without love their whole lives. Your argument is falling apart at the seams, you can’t even keep up with it anymore lmao. You can’t even keep up with my argument either, and I’m not the one changing mine. We’re done here lmao.
Sorry if I use the actual definition of words and see the difference between what is needed to solve an issue vs what is done to circumvent it.
Good luck next time you get attacked, cross your fingers they don’t decide to just go for it because stats aren’t on your side (not that you understand them anyway).
The odds of getting attacked are so low that you’re just being paranoid if you think guns are a necessity and that goes back to what I said, just like your attacker, what you need is help, not a weapon but you choose to want a weapon instead because it’s easier to deal with the trauma this way than to reflect on yourself and the society you live in and choose to encourage by arming yourself.
Also, good luck with your tueller drill, I hope you always keep people at least 20 feet from you (which is a very long distance to pull out a knife on someone!)
MythBusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode “Duel Dilemmas”. At 20 ft (6.1 m), the gun-wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot.[5]
When someone is actively attempting to stab you, you’re past the point of “help,” you’re at “fight,” “flight,” or “freeze.” Freeze gets you stabbed, flight ain’t bad if you’re fast and fight is not a good idea unless you have the ability and tools to do so. If he’s faster, fight becomes your only option (besides the fact that this is all instinct and you don’t actually choose what happens you just react, but never being in that situation I’m not surprised you have a fundimental misunderstanding about how it works,) and if you have to fight him you need a weapon of your own.
Sure, I’m paranoid because the fire death rate is only 13.0 deaths per million people but I still have a fire extinguisher. Fine, if preperation is synonymous with paranoia then I’ll at least be paranoid while putting out a fire so my cats don’t die. Your words don’t hurt me lol, knives do. You’re delusional as fuck and you cherry pick definitions, your words mean nothing
Also, good luck with your tueller drill, I hope you always keep people at least 20 feet from you (which is a very long distance to pull out a knife on someone!)
Wow you’re still misunderstanding the point of the drill even after I explicitly laid it out in terms a 5yo in ESL classes could understand? Try again dingus.
thought you said we were done here? 🤔
I am I just couldn’t resist the urge to point out how absolutely fucking stupid you are one last time.
I mean, you’re pretty stupid to believe you can defend yourself with a gun against someone with a knife just because of something you read and that’s been proven false as long as the person is less than 20 fucking feet from you! Your gun is useless in this situation even if you try to apply your little drill so goodluck to you buddy!
Lol no offense but I’m going to trust EVERY FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR EVER instead of you on this one. Literally look it up, call any firearms instructor you want and ask them to explain the Tueller principle to you. They all will say “move off the X,” the Tueller principle applies IF AND ONLY IF you STAND ENTIRELY STILL, if YOU ALSO MOVE, PREFERABLY LATERALLY it changes the outcome. I’ve literally been trained in it my dude, we ran drills, your refusal to accept that you’re wrong doesn’t invalidate literal ex special forces instructors currently working in the private sector. “Proven false” my whole ass nutsack. Face it, you’re a fucking idiot who speaks from inexperience, and who has the reading comprehension of a fucking prawn.
Lmao you really believe every literal trained expert in this very subject is wrong and you are right? Does that actually make sense to you? Oh right, you are severely delusional, my mistake.
Yeah so you see, the “civilians” part is the one that’s the issue. Civilians don’t need weapons to go about their daily lives… If the majority or even a significant proportion of people were getting attacked you might have a point, but it just isn’t the case, even in the USA where crime rate is very high for a first world country. You should go spend some time in Liberia or something to see what a country where you need to be able to defend yourself actually looks like. In the meantime you’re just playing G.I. Joe and putting everyone else in danger, going against their needs.
Funny how I keep you going even though you said we were done a long time ago 😁
Literally 100,000 people a year need to do it at the low estimate lmao. Let me tell you, it doesn’t matter how unlikely it is that you could be stabbed while you are being stabbed, you’re gonna wish you weren’t on that end of the statistic.
I’m kinda having fun proving you’re an idiot tbh, you just keep saying stupid shit and it just keeps being funny. Like, yes we’ve been going in circles because you are sold on the definition of need that you particularly like while ignoring every other definition, and also ignoring basic math, and experts, but it is really pretty funny. I can just picture you at someone’s hospital bedside saying “Well y’know, really, in a way you’re lucky that guy stabbed you 17 times in the abdomen, that is really very rare! At least you didn’t defend yourself, that’d be wrong!”
100 000 out of 330 000 000 people! That’s nothing! Freaking hell, stop proving you don’t understand stats! You don’t talk about the number of people who actually die or are hurt because of guns though, because that’s insignificant to you since it goes against your narrative.
Ok, then why ban them? If 100,000 people is “nothing!” then what is 60,000 (gun deaths incl suicide) people, 12,000 (intentional homicide by firearm) people, or 500 (people killed with any rifle) people? Ultra nothing? Seems to me in that case by your logic we don’t have a gun problem and therefore nothing to ban, since it’s so rare it is “nothing!” Don’t pay attention my ass, I’M the one who brought up those exact stats 40 comments ago, you’ve completely lost the thread hahaha.
Because they’re part of the issue, not of the solution.
There. Is. More. To. Violence. Than. Death.
I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy, 100 000 events is a lot of prevention to you, but even more people victims of gun related violence and you don’t care. If you weren’t such a hypocrite you would look at that and say “Well, maybe we actually should get rid of guns like the other first world nations considering things are better there than they are here…”
Yes there is, there’s greivous bodily injury and rape which are also legally defensible with deadly force, and then there’s normal force which you are only allowed to respond to with equal opposing force. Attempted stabbings, perhaps unsurprisingly, count as deadly force.
“Even more,” BRO, LEARN MATH IT ISN’T THAT HARD. YOU ARE CURRENTLY LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND DEFENSIVE GUN USES IS MORE, I REPEAT, MORE THAN TWELVE THOUSAND HOMICIDES. EVEN MORE THAN OUR TOTAL GUN DEATHS AT SIXTY THOUSAND.
Are you 7yo? You don’t understand “greater than/less than?!” Jfc lmao.
Hypocrisy my dick, fucking no u, you have to be a joke lmao nobody is this comfidently dumb.
You. Are. Wrong. Deal with it like the stupid cunt you are lol.
Why is it only about deaths and not also about people who get shot without dying?
Why isn’t the US the safest country in the world if there’s more guns than anywhere else?
Why do experts agree that having access to a firearm increases the odds that bad situations will end in violence in a moment of panic if guns actually increase safety?
How would you have pulled out your gun if the attacker had pulled his knife at 5’?
How would you have pulled out your gun if the attacker also had one?
How come mass shootings keep happening if people are armed and able to shoot the shooter?
Is it possible that all your drills are very nice in a controlled environment but reality isn’t a controlled environment?
Let me repeat what I said from the beginning. Pretty much no one in rich countries need a gun these days. 100 000 events in a country of 330 000 000 affects 0.03% of the population, that’s exactly what “pretty much no one” is. I was right from the beginning, deal with it.
Fun to see you lose your temper and start throwing more and more insults, shows how weak your arguments are. Go back to your NRA meeting and tell them how mad you are.
Last I was able to find all gun crime regardless of injury was about 80,000 a year which is still less than 100,000.
Because it has other problems.
Because everytown and MDA are “activists,” not actually experts.
I have a 1.5 sec draw to first shot and know how to move laterally, and defend against the knife weak hand while the strong hand shoots from a thumb pectoral index. You’re the one who can’t figure out how legs work lol.
Surreptitious draw. Never draw on a drawn gun, wait until his attention is elsewhere like the all too common furvative glances checking for witnesses and exits. If you have a sub 2 sec draw he has to show you his shoulder, sub 1sec draw he only has to show you his ear, and with that you can jump his reactionary gap (human brain, bout .5sec from decision to action) if you’re waiting for your proverbial beep.
Because the shooters choose gun free zones where armed defense is illegal and therefore more rare. It does happen though.
Yeah nothing is certain ever, preperation helps one be prepared. Duh. Still better chance than “please no I’ll suck ya dick just don’t kill me”
Ok, do the math on the rest of it then: still less, so gun crime affects “pretty much no one” too.
Lmao I can’t help but insult you when you give me such good ammo, it’s just too easy. “Lose my temper” though, no, I’m laughing at you. The caps is because maybe you’ll be able to actually read it, because so far you’re struggling.
You’re just not willing to be rational or reasonable at all because you care more about your petty and stupid political agenda than you do about the truth.
That’s all that’s happening here. Just more immaturity from children who should not be allowed to vote – and you likely won’t be able to anymore soon, since you are too emotional to even stop the right wing from getting their way. Especially on this gun issue you’re so flippantly throwing the truth out over.
You’re just not willing to be rational or reasonable at all because you care more about your petty and stupid political agenda than you do about the truth.
Tell us more about all the mass bear sprayings that kill so many Americans every year. Rational and reasonable my ass. God, you are so fucking stupid AND not self aware.
I don’t have to, because what’s being disputed is whether bear mace is a weapon or not, which it obviously is.
Calm the fuck down and pull your head out of your ass. Then come back and talk about guns. I won’t suffer idiots like you who only speak with their emotions and not with their reason.
That’s the kind of baseless childishness I have come to expect from the left. Denying basic facts, like that bear mace is a weapon, is only going to hurt your cause. Bear mace is obviously a weapon.
So go calm down, pull your head out of your ass, and try again.
The only one that is crying here is you. 🤷 And the people who get sprayed with that stuff on the regular, but we both know this is about you justifying your anger and not about anything substantive.
Heck, I mentioned it elsewhere, my uncle used to live in Nunavik, didn’t own one, they had one hunting rifle per work team in their truck, but that’s exactly my point, he didn’t personally needed one, but he needed one while at work because his job would bring him all over the place and they could meet dangerous wildlife. The worst that could happen at home was having a bear on his deck in the morning and he would just call and a couple minutes later authorities were there to make it go away or do a catch and release.
Just because a bear comes doesn’t mean you immediately murder it you fucking psychopath.
And if a bear comes it’s regardless of whether you have a pewpew stick or not.
If you’re in bear country you already know how to live with bears. They fuck your shit up just visiting so it’s something you take great measure to actively discourage visitors. None of that is shooting living things in the face because you have little-dick energy.
From the get go my take is that a minority of people need guns. My uncle worked for the transport ministry in a location where the biggest town has a couple hundreds permanent residents, his job was to go check all the dirt roads around, no shit he would need a rifle for work. At home he clearly didn’t need one though because well… He was in town, at home!
Yeah, in remote locations the local authorities take care of wildlife that decide to come inside the towns, people don’t just go shooting bears left and right, that’s pretty obvious when you think about it for more than 2 seconds.
It’s really depressing. Yesterday I packed out an order for a hidden magnetic gun holder.
Like great. That is wonderful. Someone out there, possibly a paranoid deranged asshole, wants to keep a presumably loaded gun under their bedside table or desk…
Sadly a lot of online propaganda brainwashes their age group. It transformed several boomers I knew that formerly would have opposed fascism into insane Qanon Trump supporters.
They would add more years if they could, obviously. Kinda reminiscent of mediaeval people digging up dirtbags to put them on trial again. When you hate someone ...
probably legally but again stupid + drunk and angry with zero thought beyond the moment
something like ‘they’re not gonna kick me off my own property’ drunk as fuck and was interviewed in shock
I know someone that shot at his own mom cause she wouldn’t give him 20$, they got in a fight and she told him something like ‘shoot me if you don’t believe me I don’t have it’
Maybe his intention was just to clear the view, not to kill anyone. He’s allowed to clear the view in his home, right? Anything above waist height has to go, I’ve felt the same many a time polishing my SMG in the garage. Alas, I have neither wife, kids, nor visitors to obstruct my view, for unrelated reasons.
I’ve got bad news for you buddy, second amendment or not, the side who’s got the army behind them wins. You can have whatever shiny gun you like, you won’t even see the drone that blows you up.
In what scenario does the military not pick sides? No matter if it’s from the get go or not.
All out civil war? Same scenario, military gets involved? The side they’re on will be told to hide, they’ll shoot anyone walking around with a gun and it will come from the sky.
The second amendment was written at a time when it made sense, with today’s military it doesn’t make any anymore and it achieves the opposite of what was intended, putting people in danger instead of keeping them safe.
In the scenario where they fracture in command- most likely that’ll be a regional thing at the base level
Politics has been more easily explained throughout American history as “north” vs “south”. In addition to the regular army, there’s all the nat guards that’ll probably go with their states.
Not only do they not have the 2A, they don't need it, guns are plentiful and cheap and somehow ignorant farmers who live in caves and huts keep using them to resist drones and smart bombs.
I'm not advocating for 0 gun regulations, I'm pointing out the "the side with the bigger guns wins" argument is stupid and provably false.
What you’re ignoring for the sake of your argument is that the army would be on its own turf instead of going somewhere where they don’t know the land and there’s a big difference between Americans with guns and foreign militias backed by other countries. Also, don’t look up the death rate of Afghans vs foreigners in the 2000s war because it doesn’t look good for the Afghans.
Don’t know why you would bring up Vietnam, drones weren’t a thing back then, today the military wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side.
If the military today wouldn't even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side (proven false in recent conflicts btw) why does it matter if they're on their turf? Your own reasoning doesn't make any sense and ignores a ton of conflicts. You mentioned Afghanistan, who's in charge there now, is it the US?
The statement wasn't about how many people on whichever side die, but that pretending that "You don't need a gun to defend yourself because the federal government has missles" is an extremely poor, provably false argument. I support stronger gun laws, it's just a really bad take.
It makes sense because they have maps of everything, that’s a huge technical advantage over invading a country where no one but the locals know the terrain.
They have satellites and drones that can map everything relatively quickly, recon isn't the hard part. Topographical data doesn't win hearts and minds.
Like I said, I'm not against gun control though. I just feel like blanket "no guns!" statements aren't really productive to the conversation. It'd be like trying to discuss abortion with a Christian and demanding "abortions on demand up to 10 months no questions asked!"
It's just such a dismissive, "my way or the highway" take that it makes reasonable discussion impossible and guarantees gridlock.
Satellites don’t let you map tunnels and caves, that’s the difference with fighting in the USA vs in Afghanistan or Iraq or Gaza, in the USA towns have maps of their underground and of all the buildings and heck, authorities have files on the people most likely to be armed and dangerous.
The thing is, people think it will come down to armed conflict. It won’t. It’s much easier duping people into believing the Fuhrer and have them join the movement instead. It has worked innumerable times in history, and is literally what is happening right now and has been going for decades- half the nation willingly votes in tyrants, under the rationale that the non-tyrants will take away the citizens’ rights to defend against being ruled by tyrants.
Flbprprprprprprprblpr is my state of mind since around the turn of the century.
I’m just going to go out on a limb and assume the sketch artist makes money on Patreon selling custom Edward Cullen “art” and just couldn’t stop the habit.
nottheonion
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.