Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, I did mean it. It was a typo. Deal.Except you have no reason to believe I'm a murderer whatsoever. We do know some things about Paddock. White male. Over 50. Red State. Avid gun enthusiast. Chances are...
Las Vegas red state? LOL Harry Reid ran that place for 30 years.
Originally posted by Kurk
Holy hell and people call me a cuck 😂 .I tend to agree that attacking/killing people over material possessions is unnecessary for the most part, but exceptions can be made:
A. Not all material possessions are created equal. People have sentimental attachments to things that insurance can't replace. If for example, some vandal breaks into my garage and tries to steal my rare, expensive, classic car I'm not going to hide inside and wait for the police while this person continues to damage something that cannot be fixed or replaced—and even it were so would cause my premiums to skyrocket if a claim was made. I will hold them at gun-point (state-law dependent) or at the very least remove them physically.
B. What if you have dependents in your household (i.e children, elderly parents) who would physically be unable to retreat with you? In this case guns will at least be drawn
On a side note, I will determine what is worth risking life over, not the state or yourself 🙂
Every other part of the world, really? Seems like quite the generalization.
Kuck.
A) A guy kicks down your door and you're worried about your premiums? Christ, I knew you yanks had it bad but thats ridiculous. Even sentimental objects aren't worth risking your life, dude. That car ain't gonna do you any good if you're dead.
B) So now its a woman living by herself in the woods with children/her grandma? This is becoming a really specific and elaborate scenario you're painting to try to find a situation where a gun is useful. Anyone in such a vulnerable position would no doubt have some sort of security precautions in place, but I guess if there isn't the best she could do would be barracading a door. So I suppose in this specifc situation she'd probably be screwed, but shed be screwed if the guy had a gun anyway so its not as if this justifies anything.
Risk your own life all you want, but you shouldn't have the right to risk others lives just so you can "defend" yourself in this ridiculous fantasy you've created. Thousands die every year because people like you imagine yourself performing silly heroics in self-defense. In truth such cases are practically non-existent and you're bending over backwards trying to justify your delusions.
Don't dodge the point. Other countries do just fine without guns. They aren't necessary to be safe in your home.
Originally posted by Silent Masterno, it isn't. a retarded argument would be "there's no 100% solution, so forget the whole thing". even the orange manbaby is calling to ban bump stocks now. holy crap dude, why is that so bad for you that you gotta get b1tchy and fresh over it? 😂
That is a retarded argument.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no, it isn't. a retarded argument would be "there's no 100% solution, so forget the whole thing". even the orange manbaby is calling to ban bump stocks now. holy crap dude, why is that so bad for you that you gotta get b1tchy and fresh over it? 😂
What you said was indeed retarded. Do better.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no, it isn't. a retarded argument would be "there's no 100% solution, so forget the whole thing". even the orange manbaby is calling to ban bump stocks now. holy crap dude, why is that so bad for you that you gotta get b1tchy and fresh over it? 😂
I never made that argument, so have fun with that strawman.
Originally posted by NephthysSo are you against people defending themselves and their property in general, or just lethal force; what?
Kuck.A) A guy kicks down your door and you're worried about your premiums? Christ, I knew you yanks had it bad but thats ridiculous. Even sentimental objects aren't worth risking your life, dude. That car ain't gonna do you any good if you're dead.
B) So now its a woman living by herself in the woods with children/her grandma? This is becoming a really specific and elaborate scenario you're painting to try to find a situation where a gun is useful. Anyone in such a vulnerable position would no doubt have some sort of security precautions in place, but I guess if there isn't the best she could do would be barracading a door. So I suppose in this specifc situation she'd probably be screwed, but shed be screwed if the guy had a gun anyway so its not as if this justifies anything.
Risk your own life all you want, but you shouldn't have the right to risk others lives just so you can "defend" yourself in this ridiculous fantasy you've created. Thousands die every year because people like you imagine yourself performing silly heroics in self-defense. In truth such cases are practically non-existent and you're bending over backwards trying to justify your delusions.
Don't dodge the point. Other countries do just fine without guns. They aren't necessary to be safe in your home.
Originally posted by Silent Master
No, I didn't. I'm just pointing out that trying to ban bumps stocks is a political move that has nothing to do with saving lives.
In your expert gunman and marksmanship opinion. Do you think LV shooter and alleged Trump supporter Stephen Paddock could have amassed his kill count as easily without his use on bumpstocks? Harder? The same? Something else?
I ask, because iirc, authorities pointed to the dumpstocks as making it easier for him to "spray and pray" at the crowds; relying less on marksmanship. Least I think that's how they put it.
nah you were arguing exactly what i said. if you want to change your argument then fine. sure, politicians are typically not governed by their humanity. however that has nothing to do with:
Originally posted by Silent Master
Bump stocks don't allow automatic fire.
Originally posted by Silent Master
People are aware that you can rapid fire semi-auto weapons without a bump-stock, right?