As my point in this thread and a few others has been
people just watch too much TV
the guys doing the massacures
They dont monologue
They dont have goons
Are actually capable of killing someone in a shot or 2 and are not relegated to just missing or just missing that one vital spot.
They dont leave the hero tied up with some convenient item placed there so the hero can escape
They shoot, they kill until they are shot and killed (usually by police even in areas with conceal carry) or captured (also by police)
And the "good guys with a gun"
Dont have bullet time
Can miss
Dont have a villain who monologues giving them enough time to shoot
can die
dont have perfect aim
- - - Updated - - -
Cuck hits you close to home?
My Collection
- Bring back my damn zoom distance/MoP Portals - I read OP minimum, 1st page maximum-make wow alt friendly again -Please post constructively(topkek) -Kill myself
if you're point was that the "harm" you're intending to describe is all bad, I don't think I helped because not all harm is bad. causing harm on bad people is good and most americans would agree.
I don't think I'll ever own a gun, the thought of holding one and firing isn't something I personally want to experience or even enjoy. And though I personally would prefer no one in my country owns one besides hunting, I understand and weigh the pros against the cons. For every time there is someone who is killed in one of these shootings, there is more who are killed in home invasions. There are more who are killed invading homes and there are more people saved in home invasions thanks to guns.
Because of that, I refuse to get emotional over a handful of deaths in a single moment because in the bigger picture, there are far...far more home invasions that guns have saved people and taken the lives of bad people. Then there's the home invasions where guns could have saved lives if they were owned.
And what do arrows do after they leave the bow? What do darts do when they leave your hand? "Target shooting" is not synonymous with "destroying shit".
Or at least they're not synonymous to people who don't have an inability to think critically and rationally about the subject.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Not sure if the facts support your assumption but my point was rather simple a gun has one function unlike knives and cars not sure why that is even up for debate.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes bows and arrows were not made for home cooking, you shoot at things it destroys it. Your gun worship is showing guns have no other use in society they aren't vehicles, knives or any number of things that can kill people but have other uses.
Reality is that people are never prepared for someone coming and shooting people indiscriminately, there's no way to be prepared for that. Having a gun isn't going to help you much unless you already have it pulled out and aimed at them to shoot before they start shooting, which basically requires you to possess precognition(Which isn't a thing). There will be several people shot before people start realizing what's happening, they don't announce it before they start shooting, they just start shooting.
You're not going to be the hero that shot a shooter and prevented deaths, you're going to be another victim.
It's also been tested as well. There was some experiment in Texas I'll try to find the link for but basically every time, the person carrying ended up dead with everyone else. Only a small handful of the test simulations they did had the person "alive" at the end.
The order was like person dead w/ gunman alive >>>>>>> both dead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person alive w/ gunman dead. Just can't recall the exact percentages.
The best part is people claiming guns arent made to kill only, but to deter. Good logic for a three years old. I mean nuclear weapon are clearly made to not destroy then!... deter is a side effect of something, not what its made for. The only reason gun could deter is because ITS MADE TO KILL. Paper sheet doesent deter anything, because its not made to kill.
Gun defense has literally no personal use. If someone wanted you dead, they will shoot you before you even know someone wants to kill you. The second amendement is about militia against the federal government either way, idiots just keeps warping it over time. Point is, its useless now. Your shitty guns aint stopping the federal government if it wanted it would flatten your home with a tank or bomb and theres nothing your shitty guns can do about it. This is not 1787 anymore.
But hey what do i care, you can keep your shitty laws and your school shooting every week. My loved ones arent part of that degenerate society and are unlikely to ever be shot by anyone.
Last edited by minteK917; 2018-02-17 at 07:52 PM.
See, and this is the problem with biased research. That article quotes data from the VPC, which is rabidly anti-gun. Directly from the VPC website: "Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director. Josh Sugarmann, a native of Newtown, Connecticut, has been executive director of the Violence Policy Center since he founded it in 1988. Prior to establishing the VPC, he served as a press officer in the national office of Amnesty International USA and as the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. He is also the author of two books, NRA: Money, Firepower & Fear and Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns."
The validity of the interpretations the VPC places on its cherry-picked data has been questioned ad nauseam.
It's up for debate because your "statement of fact" is wrong. Ignoring the evidence to the contrary doesn't really make your position look sound.
And more of the same blindness. According to you, archery is wanton destruction and self-defense isn't of use to society.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils