Science Right-to-carry laws make us less safe

No this is where you're playing stupid again. I don't feel as if I can call anybody whatever gender they aren't. I refer to people as their actual genders and if they wanna be known as the other gender, sorry not working for me. It's called common sense and the fact you tried to twist that again and apparently you don't know the difference between what gender has a dick and which one has a pussy makes you super ignorant and quite honestly dumb.

if anybody has strawman arguments it's you, I have never seen you type out one solid point, you're too busy shitting on points that you can actually research and find out are true, you're just stuck in a dimension where the truth is what you want it to be, you pick and choose. Research a bit, learn some stuff and you might find out a lot of the points people make on here against yours are actually true.

Keep being emotional!!!

 

Yeah it's kind of insane you think there are more than 2 genders. Don't know why you refer to me as a female, seems what I said went right over your head as everything does.

 

Sorry for the late reply. I was watching UFC 213......I pity anyone who paid money for that shit. Really wanted to see the Nunes fight instead of some 40 year old slow fucker defend his title. Which he lost, and rightfully so. Boring fucking match.

Anyways....

Fine. My mistake. Dropping it.

Thank you.

You said it yourself: it lowers the chances of getting accidentally shot. But nowhere did I imply that it eliminates the risk entirely. If that's what you took from it, then I apologize; that wasn't what I was saying.

I gather that you are trying to say that accidents happen; mistakes happen. You are right: they do. A few years back, there was a popular author for one of the gun magazines; a retired police officer with a distinguished career, who also taught self-defense classes for civilians and police officers. One day, while his family was out, he put a .25 caliber semi-auto pistol in a holster in the front of his waistband (they call it "Appendix Carry" for where the gun is positioned when you carry it) and then went out to his garage (he was on his way to teach a class).

Once out there, he bent over to pick up a fallen broom; the gun fell out of his wristband, hit the back of the slide on the concrete floor, and discharged a .25 JHP back up into his chest. He collapsed and died right there in the garage.

I'm well aware that accidents happen. When I said "almost zero", I wasn't saying that it can NEVER happen. But as you stated, as the point I was trying to make: not associating with dangerous, reckless, or careless people, nor putting yourself in such situations, can greatly reduce your risk of getting shot. It's worked for me, and it works for millions of other safe, law-abiding gun owners in this country every day.

Barfo.......do you honestly expect me to believe that you've been arguing for some...3 pages?....of this thread over the correct math of a graphic I posted?

If that is seriously the case, then you have once again missed the point that I have been repeating over and over and over in this thread. And that is this: we do not have a gun violence problem in this country. Not even close.

Stop arguing the math. Even yourself came to the conclusion that it wasn't that much of a difference (your own math proved this). Start looking at the POINT of the post, not the math.

Two things:

1) those who usually argue that we have a gun violence problem in this country (which is what I'm ASSUMING you were doing when you were arguing the math with me...) usually are arguing in favor of gun control. If you weren't, then fine. But I just hope you understand that perspective, that's all.

2) I love to argue, so I can relate to you on that. BUT....I learned long ago only to argue on that which I am knowledgeable about. Which is why I don't argue often on this forum. I'm not saying you were arguing from an uneducated perspective, I'm just stating MY position when arguing.

Well....the fact that you continue to take what I'm saying out of context, ignore it completely (or just miss the point that I'm trying to make entirely, your choice), or just use outright sarcasm tells me that you're just trying to say "I'm right, and you're wrong" without making a concrete point.

So....I'll ask you a very simple question to get back on point here, so that, if you wish, we can try and fix this dialogue here.....

What, specifically, are you arguing in this thread? That mistakes happen? Accidents happen? Poor math happens?

The ball is in your court.

 

Alright, I'm glad we got this sorted.

For the record, when I posted that graphic, it wasn't so much the numbers that I was arguing, it was the point of the post that I was clarifying: that we don't have a gun violence problem (whether you agree with that or not....I'm just stating my point with that graphic).

But, if I may.....the numbers on that graphic weren't that big of a difference or far off from what the math was that you used. Personally, I don't think it would have been worth arguing over, if it were me. But that's just me.

I mean, shit....if I say "this bag of M&Ms contains 300 candies"......why argue if the bag contains 290? At some point, I just think it's a little redundant.

 

I'm going to just say that I think it's pretty close to accurate. Is it 100%? Probably not. But judging by the last numbers of gun control activists that I usually see, I think it''s accurate enough to make a point.

Like I said: math was never my strong point, nor did I make the graphic (found it on Twitter, IIRC...). But it looked well broken down to me.

 

Uhhhhhhhhhh, burn.

 

There is a lot of text to read between the part where barfo starts calling him her. I am going to skip it and explain my opinion on the subject.

If someone wants to be called a weird pronoun that I don't understand or feel like doing I plan to just call them by their given name.

If barfo wants to be called zhed or whatever made up word zhed wants I'd just stop saying zhed and say barfo does this, and barfo does that.

 

I'm not that worried about it. I say he or she if I don't know someone. I don't run into many people like the mom who wants the baby's gender marked unknown.

I'm actually a bit confused about how they picked the pronouns they want to use. They don't seem to have tried to create new words that fit with the flow of the English language. Calling a single person they makes my brain cringe. That one needs to stop.

If someone asks me where Barfo went, I'd say something like "he went across the street to fill his crazy pill prescription"

If you answered "they went across the street to fill they's crazy pill prescription" I'd ask "rasta went too?"

 

I switched to barf before I heard anything about gender.

 

can you not tell if somebody is a he or she?

 

Not always, live in Vegas for a while. My wife has some employees that I don't think you'd know unless I told you to lool realllllly close.

 

But, you'd just call them she and nobody would care.