Sorry, not reading the story, but he actually shot her in the fucking head??Yeah. She should have totally shot him back after he shot her in the head.
All the data? You sure about that?
No, what's sad is you can't separate responsible gun ownership and irresponsible. To you, it appears its all irresponsible.
Again we agree to disagree.
Sorry, not reading the story, but he actually shot her in the fucking head??
I don't even understand how people argue this fundamentally basic point. You are more likely to be injured by a gun if you own one, than if you don't. It's so basic on its face, and yet people so vehemently disagree.Actually all the data available shows owning a gun to be unsafe.
That's some tinfoil hat shit right there lolYes. There isn't much because the NRA blocked it all via pulling funding via congress critters but the Saracen that exists show you have a greater chance of blowing your child's brains out then ever being some heroic hero killing invaders in your home who had plans of raping and killing your entire family.
I would agree with that basic point. Can't shoot your kid in anger if you don't have one.I don't even understand how people argue this fundamentally basic point. You are more likely to be injured by a gun if you own one, than if you don't. It's so basic on its face, and yet people so vehemently disagree.
No, that's a verifiable and well known fact.That's some tinfoil hat shit right there lol
Exactly.I would agree with that basic point. Can't shoot your kid in anger if you don't have one.
He was driving a 2 ton projectile.if you carry a gun you risk becoming irrational in a situation and killing another person. Humans are flawed creatures. I bet this pick up driving, rural living, trump supporting man was all about his freedumb.
One not designed to kill.He was driving a 2 ton projectile.
They do a fine job of it if a nut puts his mind to it though.One not designed to kill.
Sure, but the comparison you made was intellectually dishonest. I could kill someone with a beach volleyball if I were so inclined, shall we allow it the same rhetorical weight?They do a fine job of it if a nut puts his mind to it though.
That's some tinfoil hat shit right there lol
I'd a true gun owner (again not familiar with this term) means a responsible gun owner then yes. They are mutually exclusive by definition. Unless, of course, you're in the camp that thinks all gun owners are irresponsible.By your definition a "true gun owner" and an "irresponsible one" are mutually exclusive. It's a fallacy that makes rhetoric worthless.
Actually all the data available shows owning a gun to be unsafe.
Yeah, I don't think so. If he had no gun and was angry enough to shoot her then he was angry enough to ram her with the truck. The intent of the designers of the truck is 100% irrelevant.Sure, but the comparison you made was intellectually dishonest.
I'd a true gun owner (again not familiar with this term) means a responsible gun owner then yes. They are mutually exclusive by definition. Unless, of course, you're in the camp that thinks all gun owners are irresponsible.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Dude, we've been over "No True Scotsman" a few times now. Read up.I'd a true gun owner (again not familiar with this term) means a responsible gun owner then yes. They are mutually exclusive by definition. Unless, of course, you're in the camp that thinks all gun owners are irresponsible.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
This is purely speculation/supposition. How do you make that leap? He used an instrument designed to kill, to kill. Watch this, no he wouldn't have. Here we are, on opposite side of an absurd point of contention that does nothing to further the discussion.Yeah, I don't think so. If he had no gun and was angry enough to shoot her then he was angry enough to ram her with the truck. The intent of the designers of the truck is 100% irrelevant.