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…”
Drill vs reality, you’re stupid if you think you’ve got any chance with the element of surprise.
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.
Not as delusional as the guy who thinks what is needed to stop violence is to add more instruments of violence to the mix 🙃
Yeah, it’s not like cops, military, and civilians carry them because they work or anything.
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…”