Guns

[email protected]

Hence why I said it would probably be a huge waste of time and money. What you've said is exactly why I don't have a firearm.

[email protected]

Well done, great responses

[email protected]

All of your responses are being downvoted and for good reason. Maybe you need to rethink some things

[email protected]

You are just another gun apologist doing his thing. Must be great to ignore all the suffering because "guns are toys boys".

It is clear people like you can't be trusted with a butter knife let alone and actual weapon. You scoff at a million women raped by gun point like it ain't no big deal.

You can tell them your sorry. In fact we will line them up one at a time and you can let each one know it wasn't the gun that did it. By the time you tell them all there will be millions more raped.

You can't apologize to dead ones though so perhaps you can look their kids in the eyes and tell them it wasn't the gun that killed your mother.

You doubt my assertion? I doubt you care about actual researched papers or facts. I doubt there is anything anyone could say to change your mind because you will refuse to believe it.

It is pretty rich you call me disturbed when everything I said was factual including a very personal experience. I am sorry you feel threatened by the fact that women are disproportionately abused and murdered by the thing you view as a toy.

I live in Alaska where real men have guns as tools not toys so I look at you like you are particularly pathetic. The fact that you fantasize about identifying your target before you kill them says all about your fucked up wanna-be military mindset.

[email protected]

Rethink that you are another gun apologist? Hard pass on that goober.

Pavel Chichikov

reread your stuff. if you can't understand how it proves your own stupidity, then you really are hopelessly lost.

[email protected]

Only insults then? Ok.

[email protected]

Well, good luck with that!

[email protected]

What? This is true but that’s not my point at all. I simply don’t care if they are military weapons or not. The entire point of the second amendment is for the citizenry to pose a threat against tyranny, which could include the military. Civilian ownership of effective weapons is part and parcel with that.

Do you really think an assault rifle is going to give you that critical edge against an f-16 or armored fighting vehicle vs a hunting style rifle? What kind of war do you think you will be fighting that this would actually make a meaningful difference?

Weapons were entirely different things when the second amendment was made, that is your interpretation of the second amendment that a fully kitted ar-15 with high capacity magazines fits the definition of what the writers of the constitution had in mind when the wrote the second amendment is and frankly it doesn't matter too much after a certain point if the writers of the constitution wrote this part of the law without ANY of the modern context of how much more violence a single person with a weapon can do in a short time.

Pavel Chichikov

only lack of logic then? ok.

[email protected]

That 34% came from your data, feel free to search for the amount of carriers and choose your favorite estimate and use that, it's still lower than 34%. As for the motivations for "not stop with gun" think critically, it's simply more likely that if such a low percentage of people carry daily, there's a higher chance that nobody there has one at any given location/time (aside from expected locations like "gun store" or "police station" where of course the likelihood of the presence of guns jumps to 100%, but for some reason those are rarely targeted). Would you rather stop a shooter with a gun of your own or risk bare handing it?

Flying Squid

choose your favorite estimate

See above, re: unprovable assertion.

[email protected]

Do you really think an assault rifle is going to give you that critical edge against an f-16 or armored fighting vehicle vs a hunting style rifle?

Do you really pay this little attention to history? If AFVs and fighter jets were some magic bullet, the wars in the Middle East and Asia would have been vastly different affairs. Resistance fighters don’t shoot down fighter jets, it’s a completely silly point to make.

frankly it doesn't matter too much after a certain point if the writers of the constitution wrote this part of the law without ANY of the modern context of how much more violence a single person with a weapon can do in a short time.

It was common at the time for private citizens to own warships heavily armed with artillery, and to get writs to be privateers (aka legal pirates). The founding fathers considered prototype repeating firearms for the military when fighting the British, and were aware of early attempts at semi auto or cartridge fed weapons.

A warship can kill a lot more people than an AR-15 and they clearly saw the potential for future firearms like it. So, once again, that point holds no water.

[email protected]

You throw around a million women raped at gunpoint as if the guns are responsible, how many women are raped without guns by chance? Orders of magnitude more? Thought so. Of course I'm giving you flippant responses.

I'm not telling them I'm sorry for shit, I did nothing to them, I've raped nobody. I will tell them that the man was responsible not an inanimate object, and I'll teach them how to defend themselves with one if they want, but make no mistake it was a person that made the decision to rape and you shouldn't make excuses like "the gun made him do it."

Sure, a person made that decision, not a gun, don't make excuses for murderers either.

Oh you think just shooting dark figures is a good idea? Lol cool, you and your "real men" have fun killing innocent people by mistake then, alpha boy. I'll be over here with the betas and gun safety. You're a fucking joke lmao.

[email protected]

Yes yes ignore any other data, I'm gonna be honest dude I don't actually care if you believe the data or not, you can look it up if you really care but you're clearly more interested in dismissing it so, have a nice day I guess, this little subthread has reached its logical conclusion, goodbye.

Flying Squid

I can't look up data that doesn't exist.

[email protected]

Guns are meant to extinguish lives. The others are meant to save them.

[email protected]

percent of americans carry guns at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

(duckduckgo.com)

Since you evidentially are unaware of the existence of search engines I'll provide this helpful link.

Now, if you just wholly reject the concept of estimates (lol but you do you) you can go with the raw "has CCW" number which is tracked, though low (due to constitutional carry/open carry), and would benefit my argument. Again IDGAF, 34% ain't that bad of a percentage for how few people carry whether you believe it or not, and you're clearly dead set on your preconceived notions that misrepresented data is good and estimates are bad (though there is the 8% of americans with verifiable CCW permits, that ain't no estimate), so again I must bid thee adeu.

[email protected]

You vastly overestimate your own skills in that department, acid man.

Pavel Chichikov

said the man who couldn't refute literally any of my points (and clearly didn't understand most of them in the first place)