Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 12:14 pm
As a 68 year old, I suddenly feel incredibly lucky to be getting away with not carrying a gun as a precaution against violent, rampaging twenty year olds.
You are. It's a stupid fucking problem to have to solve but there we are.
Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 12:14 pm
We have laws and a police force, which also protects me and anyone else from physically stronger men. I can anticipate your response to that, but that's just the way it is in a civilised society. Just to add: none of my women have expressed any desire to carry a gun.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 11:18 am
We've done the experiment already, dumbass.
..again dumbass.
"Long-term homicide rates across Western Europe 1250 to 2020"
Oooo nooo - 70 people per 100,000 people died (nothing to do with guns btw) back when everyone was a kunt (wars not homicide) to present.
Now Skeppy put things into TRUE stat perspective...provide a graph of the USA deaths by guns since 1700 to present in relation to percentage of guns per population for those years.
What is it that you don't understand about the giraffe?
OK. Now Skeppy, just so that we can ALL be clear about what kind of irrational twat you are..
Do you actually think that in the two scenarios below that playground B is going to have more deaths than playground A?
Playground A: Humans are given as many guns as they wish.
Playground B: Humans are given as many bananas as they wish.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 12:15 pm
I am a police officer and a law-abiding citizen.
Who protects the protectors?
Yeah, it seems like a really fun game to play, having to protect ourselves against ourselves. Have you got any new solutions for this need to protect ourselves from ourselves?
"Long-term homicide rates across Western Europe 1250 to 2020"
Oooo nooo - 70 people per 100,000 people died (nothing to do with guns btw) back when everyone was a kunt (wars not homicide) to present.
Now Skeppy put things into TRUE stat perspective...provide a graph of the USA deaths by guns since 1700 to present in relation to percentage of guns per population for those years.
What is it that you don't understand about the giraffe?
OK. Now Skeppy, just so that we can ALL be clear about what kind of irrational twat you are..
Do you actually think that in the two scenarios below that playground B is going to have more deaths than playground A?
Playground A: Humans are given as many guns as they wish.
Playground B: Humans are given as many bananas as they wish.
It doesn't matter what I thnk, you idiot.
The empirical evidence is clear.
This is called an INVERSE relationship. More guns == less murder.
Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 12:14 pm
As a 68 year old, I suddenly feel incredibly lucky to be getting away with not carrying a gun as a precaution against violent, rampaging twenty year olds.
You are. It's a stupid fucking problem to have to solve but there we are.
I don't deny the possibility of some future encounter with a violent 20 year old, but I would rather risk being given a black eye than risk being responsible for his death.
Who protects the protectors?
I can only assume that your attitude comes from living in a much more violent place than I do.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 12:20 pm
More guns == less murder.
Why not zero murder?
Even just one murder is too much, don't you think?
Imagine being born into a world where someone had to be murdered to protect everyone else, what seems like a fun game, gun owenership, that is not much fun, especially if it was you who was murdered for just innocently living your funnest best life minding your own business.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 12:59 pm
I wat the laws AND I want the police AND I want a gun.
That gives me the best protection possible.
Why would you need a gun if nobody else has a gun, indeed people just have bananas?
Seriously, is this the thread where the stupid morons of the NRA support get to tell us that a world full of people with guns is safer than a world full of people with bananas!!
..and then by the same logic, a world full of nuclear weapons is safer than a world full of just bananas as weapons!
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 1:07 pm
Why would you need a gun if nobody else has a gun, indeed people just have just bananas.
Because I am not interested in becoming a proffessional fighter/boxer/martial artist/expert at violence.
I am interested in winning any physical confrontation I get dragged into with least effort necessary on my part.
I ain't got infinite time to become an expert at violence. I got better things to do.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 1:07 pm
Seriously, is this the thread where the stupid morons of the NRA support get to tell us that a world full of people with guns is safer than a world full of people with bananas!!
..and then by the same logic, a world full of nuclear weapons is safer than a world full of just bananas as weapons!
..you people are pathetic.
It's not the same logic.
Blowing up the fucking city when somebody's trying to murder me seems a tad.... dispoportionate.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 1:07 pm
Seriously, is this the thread where the stupid morons of the NRA support get to tell us that a world full of people with guns is safer than a world full of people with bananas!!
..and then by the same logic, a world full of nuclear weapons is safer than a world full of just bananas as weapons!
..you people are pathetic.
It's not the same logic.
Blowing up the fucking city when somebody's trying to murder me seems a tad.... dispoportionate.
..but allowing gangs to have guns and take over the "fucking city" is rational?
