The “guns don't kill people” crowd sure seem to think books can make you gay.
🇳🇱
No we dont....
I, like the vast majority of the "guns dont kill people crowd" are very very much pro free speech and against banning of books.
Im sure there are some pro gun people who arent... but to claim they represent the pro-gun rights community is not remotely accurate to reality.
@ErikUden @freemo @Elleaster Except that spoons have a legitimate use and taking them away would have a negative impact on ppls quality of life.
Right, cause all those good people whose lives were saved because they had a gun and were able to protect themselves... thats not a "legitimate use" and wouldnt have had a negative impact if it was taken away.... Quite obviously your statement is disproven by example, even one example disproves it.
You want me to cite the fact that at some point in history a person who had a gun was able to defend themselves in a situation they would have been killed? You really need a citation for that?
I mean sure i dont mind linking you to one of many many cases where that happened... but seems kind of absurd that you think in the history of the world that has never happened.
But yea if you really need an actual cited example (which again seems very absurd and speaks to your bias that you think this has never happened)... here ya go:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/okla-mom-sarah-mckinley-wont-face-charges-for-shooting-intruder/
@freemo @Elleaster @ErikUden So that's an example of someone who wasn't trying to kill anyone being killed by someone with a gun. But let's count that as one. In 2012.
One in 10 years? Is that the best you can do?
Are you a serious person?
You claimed it doesnt happen. Only need one to prove you wrong and invalidate your argument.. why would i wastetime getting 2 or 10? Anyobe with two braincells knows there aremore examples than just this one in all of time and history. It was abserd you asked for one.
@Elleaster @ErikUden @freemo you need more than 2 or 10 because I can provide evidence of 10s of thousands of cases where guns made things worse.
If you are a serious person you will understand that a tool that works 1 time in 10000 is not a tool that works.
No I dont... You argued spoons sometimes serve a legitimate purpose, and strongly implied guns never serve a legitimate purpose.
To disprove you completely only a single example of it serving a legitimate purpose disproves you, and that has been done.
The problem isnt that you dont have a valid argument that would require a more "serious" response, its that you frame your arguments using bad faith to sound more "slick" by being hyperbolic thinkingi t helps when in fact it just makes you trivial to disprove...
Now your stepping back from your illegitimate hyperbolic stance of there being no legitimate use, moving the goal post, and trying to say we need to argue that the majority of times a gun is used it must be a legitiate use... very different argument, and may have been valid if you bothered to argue in good faith, but you didnt, and I wont really waste time arguing a point you never made..
Argue in good faith next time. That said, you can apologize, state your case in a good-faith way and I will be happy to address that in a more serious way.
@freemo @BenAveling @Elleaster @ErikUden
I suspect I disagree with @freemo on guns and policy, but I support the call for good-faith argument and legitimate discussion. I am not prepared to have that discussion right now, but I really enjoyed seeing the call for it.
@worldsendless
Thanks, disagreement is always most welcome, its how we all grow. And no one is ever obligated to a debate, not in the mood, sit back, no worries. But if someone engages, they should at least try to do so in good-faith or not at all (As you point out more or less).
@BenAveling @Elleaster @ErikUden