Current Events > You do not need a fucking gun

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hahaha butthole got served
---

prettyprincess posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Then gay marriage should never have been a thing, or did you forget that it was only granted through the Supreme Court?

this is a non sequitur
or, if anything, an illustration of what I said rather than a contradiction

Not at all - you claim 'the people' determine rights. Well, 'the people' had consistently voted against gay marriage. California voted against it, by, like, 80%. That means 'the people' don't think gays have the right to marry.

The Supreme Court disagreed, just like the Supreme Court disagrees with the idea that you don't 'need' semi-automatic weapons for self defense.
---

I don't need most of the shit I own, what's your point
---

Insofar as self defense or home security goes, gun ownership tends to increase the number of innocent victims. Knowledge is better in terms of defense. Self defense courses would help, so would mace or a tazer. Really though odds are good you won't overcome psychological shock before a premeditated crime is over.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Insofar as self defense or home security goes, gun ownership tends to increase the number of innocent victims. Knowledge is better in terms of defense. Self defense courses would help, so would mace or a tazer. Really though odds are good you won't overcome psychological shock before a premeditated crime is over.

So, resign yourself to victimhood.
---

I didn't say majority always rules, I implied it could be an influence
the SC is still made up of people and an example of the addition/modification of rights

but I mean
darkjedilink posted...

So, resign yourself to victimhood.

---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Insofar as self defense or home security goes, gun ownership tends to increase the number of innocent victims. Knowledge is better in terms of defense. Self defense courses would help, so would mace or a tazer. Really though odds are good you won't overcome psychological shock before a premeditated crime is over.

Two things. First, LOL at stopping a home invader with "mace or a tazer." You want repeating firepower with low recoil and low penetration. Basically, you want an ArmaLite 15.

Second, gun ownership tends to increase the number of victims, but they're not innocent, as two thirds of firearm fatalities are suicides. If you don't WANT to be killed using your own firearm, the chances of that happening are... well, there's about 500 accidental firearms deaths annually, out of 2.6 million deaths per year.
---

Conflict posted...

What you'd 'like' to do is move the fuck out

i plan to, but living is so damn cheap here and i make pretty decent money so im saving up for a home. hopefully in a few years.

prettyprincess posted...

I didn't say majority always rules, I implied it could be an influence
the SC is still made up of people and an example of the addition/modification of rights

but I mean
darkjedilink posted...

So, resign yourself to victimhood.

The Supreme Court does not, in any way, speak for society, or the people. They speak for the Constitution. Thus, if the people support something unconstitutional, the SC must go AGAINST that.

Like they did with gay marriage.
---

r4X0r posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Insofar as self defense or home security goes, gun ownership tends to increase the number of innocent victims. Knowledge is better in terms of defense. Self defense courses would help, so would mace or a tazer. Really though odds are good you won't overcome psychological shock before a premeditated crime is over.

Two things. First, LOL at stopping a home invader with "mace or a tazer." You want repeating firepower with low recoil and low penetration. Basically, you want an ArmaLite 15.

Second, gun ownership tends to increase the number of victims, but they're not innocent, as two thirds of firearm fatalities are suicides. If you don't WANT to be killed using your own firearm, the chances of that happening are... well, there's about 500 accidental firearms deaths annually, out of 2.6 million deaths per year.

Personally I'd prefer a shotgun for home defense, though my parents have a semi auto Beretta. Anyway as for your points it's hard to take you seriously when you constantly troll. Maybe post some sources.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

GaryGaryGary posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

I don't own firearms to save anyone. I own firearms for self-defense and for hobby.

If you seriously need a gun for self defense, why don't you move to somewhere that isn't so dangerous?

Living in such constant fear must be horrendous.

This isnt even a logical retort

Why isn't it?

darkjedilink posted...

The Supreme Court does not, in any way, speak for society, or the people. They speak for the Constitution. Thus, if the people support something unconstitutional, the SC must go AGAINST that.

Like they did with gay marriage

Lol
---

GaryGaryGary posted...

Why isn't it?

because owning something for the chance of a scenario is not to constantly fear it

'so move then' also isn't a viable solution for many, and the idea that unsafe areas should be abandoned before fixed is detrimental
---

butthole666 posted...

You will never save anyone.

Except yourself.

#flopic
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

darkjedilink posted...

The Supreme Court does not, in any way, speak for society, or the people. They speak for the Constitution. Thus, if the people support something unconstitutional, the SC must go AGAINST that.

Like they did with gay marriage

Lol

What's lol-worthy?
---