I would buy a self driving car though. But if you expect me to trust a technology that can’t even get my car to read the correct text message from my phone while I’m driving, on my firearm? You’re out of your damn mind. (Proverbial you.)
I’m not even worried about “good guy with a gun” or “protecting my family” when I say this. I mean in a sense that “I can’t trust this firearm, therefore it is zero place in my safe, home or around me what-so-ever.”
I can trust a 1911 is going to run decent ammo. I can trust a glock will run any god damn thing you put in it, and I can trust my SR22 will have 2 or 3 malfunctions a box of ammo. I won’t ever trust a box on my firearm that can fail due to software issues or hacking. And I don’t use guns I don’t trust.
Not that fruitless gun control banter isn’t fun. But back to the thread title. The security guard was shot 6 minutes before the concert goers, that’s different than what we learned last week.
This is the weirdest incident in recent memory. Nothing lines up. The false flaggers and tinfoil hat crowd are going to have a field day with this.
Setting aside the utter impossibility of ‘comparing the US to all nations,’ that’s not how the study of such issues is conducted.
Cool. Then we are in agreement that, unlike beer, guns were designed to kill, and many (most?) guns were designed specifically to kill people.
I’m sensing a little sarcasm here…Perhaps it would be best if we were to end this exchange.
Yes, if by “blatantly trolling” you mean ‘pointing out the self-contradictory and improvisational nature of what you’re claiming.’
And here is the quote I took in context:
When I pointed out how seatbelts can (and do) contribute to injury/death via burns and/or drowning, you dug your heels in and improvised, on the spot, pseudo-empirical claims re why seatbelts don’t contribute to people drowning or burning to death in MVAs.
Which, given your admonition upthread that 'If you can’t admit you’re wrong, just move on to something else," coupled with your chiding me for “blatant intellectual dishonesty,” is pretty rich.
That is one of the more unfair inferences you have made on this thread. I think you owe the idiots an apology.
If so, you will likely end up in dialogue only with yourself (or at least not with me).
I improvised nothing. I’m a Firefighter and an EMT. I cut people out of cars, and treat the resulting injuries, or scoop their brains up with a shovel when they didn’t wear their seatbelt. I’ve been to hundreds of wrecks, been trained by people who’ve been to thousands, watched videos and read books written by the acknowledged experts. I’m a journeyman, but I have enough sense to listen to experts, and accept the data and collective wisdom.
You sir are the one who is making shit up, resorting at the last ditch to urban legends and digging in your heels on nonsense. You claim to be an opthamologist. If that is true, what has that trade taught you about automotive safety? How many wrecks have to been to?
If I have contradicted myself, or just failed to explain something adequately, this thread has many participants, and many more readers. One of them, who is intellectually honest, is welcome to start a new thread so we can end this highjack, and I will try to respond as I have time. I don’t think it will be necessary, because you’re the only one pretending to be confused. But if someone is actually buying into your stupidity, I would love to talk to them.
lmao… For someone who in one sentence likes to speak to people in such an intellectually superior tone, you sure do like to play dumb when it fits your narrative.
It’s quite simple to do in fact:
Gun ownership by country: list
Homicide by country: list
Compare the two lists.
Phew, think I’ll get a Nobel seeing as I just did the impossible?
No, stop putting words into my mouth.
Firearms are designed to hold and chamber (mostly auto now) a cartridge. Then after an action by the operator, strike a primer, and then guide a projectile forward in a desired direction with the best possible ballistics. Ancillary to that it is designed to keep the gas and other byproducts of the chemical reaction from harming the person holding the firearm.
(The best part of this whole thing? I’m leaving you a hole big enough to drive a god damn double decker bus through here now twice. But it looks like your understanding of firearms might not be as vast as you smugly portray it as?)
Not surprised you’re running away. I would too after letting my ass hang out with the assumptions you’re making about me here.
Is there SCOTUS precedent prior to the ratification of the 14th that supports your interpretation of the 2A?
I don’t consider incorporation via the 14th inventing a new right, do you? The McDonald case if I’m not mistaken was argued solely on the grounds that it violated the 14th? And that is what the SCOTUS ruled on. The was no need, in 2010, to make the argument based on 2A original intent.
Honestly, I wish they had so we had a SCOTUS interpretation of the 2A once and for all.
So, at this point, we simply disagree on the original intent of the 2A (I agree with @Aragorn and many others) and we don’t have input from the SCOTUS (unless you know of precedent?). And, it’s all just academic at this point anyway because the matter was settled based on the14th.
I don’t see that as judicial activism or supporting a “living” document like a liberal. That’s just what happened.
And is by far, FAR the most guns per people, and pretty far down the list of homicides involving a firearm per firearm…
So not only does the do what I was told by my moral and intellectual better that which is impossible, but it also shots the whole “gun culture” in the foot thing too.
Thanks for the link. I knew I wasn’t the smartest man in the world, and someone else compared lists before.
Is that really an argument being made? Or is the argument that the states could limit your individual right?
Is homicide involving a firearm PER FIREARM really a relevant stat? Even in the context of “gun culture” it kinda only shows how many firearms we buy.
Well, if you were out to prove that guns aren’t ingrained into US culture, then I guess horray? We’re still only slightly ahead of Serbia, so I guess that’s a plus.
I’m pretty sure that’s what Ed was arguing a while back, but I phrased that poorly for @thunderbolt23. I think TB’s stance is the latter of what you wrote.
US v. Cruikshank gets closest to what you’re asking, but it wouldn’t (and didn’t) address the contours of the whether the 2A includes an individual right.
Is a high rate of death per firearm required for “gun culture” to be a thing? Guns were certainly a very large part of everyone’s culture where I grew up.
No, I don’t think so. I think a high number of firearms relative to population is a part of it (which we have). Having 7 Die Hards and 37 Call of Duty’s is also part of it
*I should say, I don’t think it’s relevant in defining “gun culture” I think it’s very relevant if you’re trying to blame “gun culture” on our homicide rate.