What does it matter that I got a ribbon in the Navy and worked armed security for four years while attending college? An apparently well trained expert in firearms handed a little girl an UZI in Arizona and ended up paying the price for his stupidity. His gun didn't save him from his stupidity. His gun mixed with his stupidity killed him. - - - Updated - - - See post #2
So if a small minority of Idiots misuse a Gun, this means what ? The same type of People drive drunk, play with power tools, and other assorted stupid acts, this in no way affects the Millions of other People that do not engage in such risky behaviors.
Not part of the conversation. Missing your turn and using the next exit DESPITE knowing it is a "high risk" area because you think your gun will protect you is stupid. and a gun will not protect you from stupid. - - - Updated - - - Not making an argument against guns. Making an argument that having a gun will not protect you from your own stupidity.
You know you sure bring up some very strange arguments ??? Missing your exit and taking the next one knowing it is dangerous thinking your Gun will protect you ? this is YOUR projection or fallacy, not what anyone else thinks.
And pray tell where exactly is the evidence that you know what you are talking about? You are now changing the discussion, from wondering what kind of person is confronted by multiple attackers, to arguing that the above does not count because there is no evidence that they knowingly ignored the situation of their surroundings? Does the phrase moving the goalposts mean anything to you?
And it would appear the police officer in this case was extremely stupid, correct? Perhaps police officers should not have firearms either?
And the CDC was prohibited from using any funding for the purpose of promoting firearms restrictions, and shaping its research to support its politicized positions. So what are you saying? Are you attempting to claim that if you are subjected to attack, your best course of action is to do nothing in response, and instead trust that your assailant will allow you to continue living so long as you comply with their demands, and refrain from doing anything that might anger them? You are basically stating that begging for your life is superior to owning a firearm when the matter comes to personal defense. Studies can be made biased. See real life instead. - - - Updated - - - So now you are claiming that no matter what type of firearm someone carries for their defense, they will be confronted by an assailant who always have a larger, more powerful firearm at their disposal? Not only that, but they will also have access to highly restricted machine guns, and rare magazines? What are you attempting to say? That if you do not have a firearm, you will not be attacked by an assailant with a firearm? Your attacker will observe some form of honor and be unarmed if you are unarmed as well?
Of course we can--it's called the Middle Ages (and before)--it was not a good time to be a normal person then..... Guns helped the cause of equality and personal freedom more than any other weapons technology.
And a united state army major decided that it would be a good idea to go on a killing spree at the Fort Hood military base in the state of Texas. What is your point? We have been over this before. Stop bringing up post number two, it does not even begin to say what you claim it does.
Do you know the area is a "high risk" area? Knowing this you then take the exit anyway? Couldn't you just go another exit or two to avoid the high risk area? Wouldn't that be smarter than taking the risk just because you think the gun will protect you? You set the parameters. I simply applied your parameters to the topic of the conversation.
Haven't moved a thing. I keep making the exact same argument. It is you that continues to try to change the situation. When Pokemon Go came out I allowed my daughter to install and begin playing. The next day I had her delete the game because I discovered that unknown people could "invite" you to a chosen destination. I don't allow personal contact with strangers from the internet because, even though I'm sure 99% of them are nice, the 1% isn't worth the risk. The link said there had been multiple incidents on previous days. Enough information to understand that the risk is present. They chose to ignore the risk. Feel free to ignore risk. even the best player eventually draws a losing hand.
I believe I said a gun will not protect you from stupid. point made. - - - Updated - - - I still don't respond to inline quotes or even read the posts.
What are you babbling about ? Who is advocating putting oneself into harms way and thinking a Gun will make up for an error in judgement ? One situation has nothing to do with the other.
Dadoalex cannot conceptualize the scenario that maybe you are just going through your normal day and somebody who has been lying in wait springs from the bushes to attack. It can happen. Bad things do happen.It's better to be prepared than not prepared. I get it.He's never had to work on the bad side of town on a Friday night at dusk. I have,and was glad I had a pistol in my pocket.
See post #2 multiple choice: If she only had a: A. gun B. brain Everything would have turned out different.
Women should be free to run wherever they want at any time they want to.With complete safety. Having a gun makes them safer.
Like the Rapist that claims his victim wanted to be Raped because the victim was wearing some type of clothing the Rapist found sexy. People have a reasonable expectation not to be attacked in a Public area designated for running and jogging.
Which is irrelevant when the topic of discussion is protecting oneself from harm. Then what is your purpose for being present if you refuse to participate? - - - Updated - - - Going to your place of employment is ignoring the risk?
Sure it does. Just like being armed saved that firearms instructor in Arizona. A gun will not protect you from stupid. - - - Updated - - - I'm on the side of common sense and safety. You're the ones who want to expose young women to risk by having them run around in the wilderness alone.
When did I say that ? Stop projecting please. I simply disagree there is any negligence on the part of a runner running on a Public path designated for running, and should have a reasonable expectation not to be attacked by a Criminal.
I still don't reply to inlie quotes. I saw I misspelled "inline" but "inlie" really accurately describes the technique.
So,dadaoalex,what is your preferred weapon to keep you and your family safe from harm? Mine is a gun.What is yours?
