Dildos descend on UT Austin in 'Cocks Not Glocks' protest of guns on campus

[Anderan]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50944741]Uh, no, I wear a seatbelt because there's always a chance someone will slam into me while drunk driving. I protect myself with the seatbelt, I proactively ensure my own safety with something designed to do that job.

[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]

Your analogy is broken if I were to use your logic that you're pretending is mine then I'd never leave my house because somebody might "get" me outside.[/QUOTE]

Admittedly it's a flawed analogy but you can hardly compare a gun to a seatbelt considering you're far more likely to get in a car accident than a shooting and a seatbelt actively prevents injury, a gun does not. Implying everyone that doesn't want to be armed because of the unlikely event there will be a shooting is a moron is just asinine. Knowing emergency exits and reporting suspicious people is basic preparedness, buying a gun, getting a cc license, and firearms training is not. Moronic would be demanding that all fire exits be chained shut because they're afraid the noise from alarms will disturb classes.

Also I really want to know how everyone plans on actually identifying which person running around with a handgun is the one that's actually killed people.

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50944789]This doesn't really speak to me as "I need a gun in case of emergency". I'm going to assume here but you can tell me I'm wrong in that you use your gun for more than just emergencies, you might use it to hunt or at the shooting range or even you just like how it looks on your wall, whatever.[/QUOTE]Sure, I have some of those.
[QUOTE]If any of those are the case, then the gun doesn't really fit into the "emergency necessities" like the other things like a fire extinguisher or canned food and what-have-you do.[/QUOTE]I'm literally eating a can of beef stew because it's nearing it's expiration date and I just so happened to have used my fire extinguisher as a expedient makeshift hammer. Your point is dumb, I use my "emergency necessities" in non-emergency capacities all the time.
[QUOTE]Even if you do only have your gun strictly for emergencies, though, you have to admit that not everyone is going to be as sensible as you.[/QUOTE]So? I'm fine with the retards and fuckups voting and saying whatever they want and having fair trials, why should this particular right be any different?

[QUOTE]Not everyone is a responsible gun owner and not everyone is rational, and this causes problems.[/QUOTE]I don't care. I truly don't. I don't care about how irrational people [U]might[/U] be and whatever subsequent problems that comes from that, I've been around long enough and have lived enough to know what happens when you go down this road.

[QUOTE]Not everyone is a responsible gun owner and not everyone is rational, and this causes problems. You are [I]significantly[/I] more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US than other Western countries (from 9x more likely than in Canada, to 15x more likely than in Switzerland, to 50x more likely than in Germany).[/QUOTE]Your country is a fine, fine example of the failures of gun control and it tickles me to death whenever an Australian tries to tell me about how amazing the rest of the world is. See you've made ownership of semi-auto firearms difficult so your biker gangs are making full-auto weapons, this is the end result of gun control in a country where the people are much, much more compliant. Here we talk about waging war on the government when [I]background checks[/I] are proposed. I don't expect you to know this but just about every single handgun on the European black market seems to come from Germany, outside of a few shops in the UK and France I have yet see one. Anecdotal, I know, but the fact that anyone in Europe or the UK gets shot is proof that no, you were never safe, especially since a country like Switzerland exists where gun ownership is essentially civic duty.

Now I want you to take those same numbers you've come up with and remove the top ten biggest cities in the United States, all of them chock full of gun control measures put in place by gun-grabbing politicians voted in by urban Democrats. As far as I'm concerned the "gun violence problem" in my country is [U]their[/U] problem, not mine, they're the ones with the killings and the violence while people like me (of which there are millions!) do not cause problems for anyone else. Legally we're unable to own firearms if we've ever been convicted of a felony (yes, even people who commit tax fraud are deemed too unstable and violent to own a .22 varmint rifle) so being a law-abiding citizen is kind of a prerequisite to the "lifestyle."

Meanwhile...
[QUOTE]I know you guys have the constitution where it says that everyone should be allowed a gun but that was probably a better idea 250 years ago than it is now.[/QUOTE]Nope. Fuck no, if anything we need it a hell of a lot more now than we did back in the late 1700's precisely because you and your kind are pressuring us to conform. Fuck that. If you don't like how we do things stay the on your side of the ocean and leave us the hell alone. Our own government is breathing down our necks regarding our privacy, trial rights, speech rights, and of course our gun rights. One of the reasons why I own firearms is because the amendment that recognizes my right also recognizes my obligation to keep my nation free, [I]we have a right to armed insurrection.[/I] We've endured constant assaults on that right and when the whole point is to fight the government it [I]kind of[/I] feels like there's something fishy going on. Fortunately smart, rational people don't run on their feelings and we recognize it's just ignorant and scared people trying to find something to blame so they [I]feel[/I] safe so they go for something obvious. You want to know why we're X times more likely to be shot here? People's fucking feelings, or more specifically, their fear of drugs and drug-related crime. Our war on drugs has bred the modern American criminal, the modern street gang, and it's directly responsible for the violence we endure.

Thanks for the concern, but I'll be keeping my guns and I support anyone else who wants to have their own.

[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Anderan;50944880]Admittedly it's a flawed analogy but you can hardly compare a gun to a seatbelt considering you're far more likely to get in a car accident than a shooting and a seatbelt actively prevents injury, a gun does not.[/QUOTE]Doesn't matter, I have [B]one life[/B] and I'm going to take every measure necessary to protect it. That means if something threatening, be it a two-legged or four-legged creature, comes along to take it away then I will use my gun(s) to defend myself. There's a bigger chance of a bad bear encounter for me personally, but I'd feel no different if I lived in Minneapolis. (I did at one point)

[QUOTE]Implying everyone that doesn't want to be armed because of the unlikely event there will be a shooting is a moron is just asinine.[/QUOTE]You sound offended which is probably why you're missing the part where I said "I'll continue to prepare" which includes all of this:
[QUOTE]Knowing emergency exits and reporting suspicious people is basic preparedness,[/QUOTE]Of course it also includes what I listed above, I live in an area prone to tornadoes and there is the occasional flood so it would be [U]monumentally[/U] stupid of me not to prepare accordingly.

[QUOTE]Also I really want to know how everyone plans on actually identifying which person running around with a handgun is the one that's actually killed people.[/QUOTE]Probably based on the guy who's actually killing people, I'd rather have "friendly fire" than a crowd of people unable to resist being slaughtered wholesale; Bataclan and the Pulse shootings come to mind. That is of course assuming it even happens, I don't know why this isn't plainly obvious to you but [I]it seems[/I] that people who like to kill random strangers prefer if they're unarmed and thus shootings at firing ranges are rather rare. Using the logic that more guns equals more violence [I]they[/I] should be the sites of constant massacres but it seems that reality disagrees with that theory.

[Fate]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50944823]I specifically claimed that safety is an illusion, which makes this next part of your post even more hilarious:
[/quote]
I mean, yes - it's an illusion to a certain extent but that doesn't mean I'd rather live in a more dangerous country that a safer one.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50944823]
I win again if we use that metric, and I'm sure I can twist the statistics to make it look like Sweden is a violent hellhole too. Actually I sort of did with the grenade attacks, so... whoops.
I don't know?????????????? What even is anything like really????????
[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you mean by win here.
And you don't seem to understand what stats are. News articles aren't stats.

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=SataniX;50944940]I mean, yes - it's an illusion to a certain extent but that doesn't mean I'd rather live in a more dangerous country that a safer one.[/QUOTE]Your GitHub says you're in Plymouth, so I searched up and [url=http://news.sky.com/story/polish-familys-shed-ruined-in-racist-attack-10495419]I found this article about a grenade attack[/url] so I hope you're not Polish.

From my perspective as somebody with Polish heritage I think your country is the more dangerous one.

[QUOTE=SataniX;50944940]Not sure what you mean by win here.
And you don't seem to understand what stats are. News articles aren't stats.[/QUOTE]Minnesota simply isn't as violent as you're pretending it is, and our gun ownership rates are steadily increasing every year. Still not very violent, my firearms are basically redundant at this point and I don't expect that to change in the future. Oh, and you don't seem to understand what "sort of" means. I'm aware News articles aren't stats.

[Anderan]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50944926]You sound offended which is probably why you're missing the part where I said "I'll continue to prepare" which includes all of this:[/quote]

No I didn't miss that part but the implication as I understood it is that anyone that doesn't prepare like you is a moron, and considering it's in the middle of a conversation about how you think guns are a necessary precaution for school shootings it's implied.

[quote]Of course it also includes what I listed above, I live in an area prone to tornadoes and there is the occasional flood so it would be [U]monumentally[/U] stupid of me not to prepare accordingly.[/quote]

Literally nobody is saying not to be at all prepared so I don't see why you feel the need to keep bringing up how much you prepare for everything and keep comparing owning a gun to some basic level of preparedness.

[quote]Probably based on the guy who's actually killing people, I'd rather have "friendly fire" than a crowd of people unable to resist being slaughtered wholesale; Bataclan and the Pulse shootings come to mind.[/QUOTE]
You're entirely assuming you actually see the assailant when it starts instead of someone walking down the hallway with a gun moments after the shooting starts.

Bataclan and Pulse aren't even remotely comparable. Bataclan was a coordinated terrorist attack with the assailants wielding automatic weapons and grenades, people being armed would not have likely changed much considering they didn't even know it was an attack at first. Pulse was a densely packed nightclub, even if there was someone there to fight back there would have been large casualties due to the situation and I'm not sure a firefight breaking out would have made the situation much better.

[quote]thus shootings at firing ranges are rather rare. Using the logic that more guns equals more violence [I]they[/I] should be the sites of constant massacres but it seems that reality disagrees with that theory.[/quote]

I never even claimed more guns equals more violence, I just don't think having a partially armed student body is going to help as much as people think it will. Also firing ranges aren't the target of attacks because there aren't enough people there to justify attacking it, not because the people there are armed. If someone really held a grudge against the people at the firing range enough to kill them they'd probably do it in one way or another, the guns would just force them to use a bomb or something. Hell, that brings up the point that if enough people on a campus are armed all people would do is start adding homemade bombs into the mix to maximize casualties. Random backpacks sitting around campus wouldn't raise that much suspicion.

If someone really wants to kill a bunch of people on a campus they'll find one way or another to do it. If you bring more guns, they'll just find a way around it.

[Skanic]

Find it funny that people say how save Sweden when its the capital of rape in Europe.

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=Anderan;50944970]Literally nobody is saying not to be at all prepared so I don't see why you feel the need to keep bringing up how much you prepare for everything and keep comparing owning a gun to some basic level of preparedness.[/QUOTE]You're disputing it so we're talking about it? Anyway it is, I don't know why you would exempt something that can equally kill you dead as a housefire, car crash, or something similar as a non-issue and not prepare for it. During the Rodney King riots Korean shopowners kept looters at bay because the cops were out of reach, I [I]think[/I] if you live in an urban area that might suffer a catastrophic natural disaster creating a similar lawless scenario then it might be a good idea to own a gun.

[QUOTE]You're entirely assuming you actually see the assailant when it starts instead of someone walking down the hallway with a gun moments after the shooting starts.[/QUOTE]You're entirely assuming that I would actually shoot at the first person I saw who looked remotely threatening. I'd be more concerned with evacuation and getting people out, if somebody shoots at me only then will I draw and return fire, not before.

[QUOTE]Bataclan and Pulse aren't even remotely comparable. Bataclan was a coordinated terrorist attack with the assailants wielding automatic weapons and grenades, people being armed would not have likely changed much considering they didn't even know it was an attack at first. Pulse was a densely packed nightclub, even if there was someone there to fight back there would have been large casualties due to the situation and I'm not sure a firefight breaking out would have made the situation much better.[/QUOTE]Baseless conjecture, you have literally no way to prove any of that while any scenario I bring up where somebody used their CCW to end a "mass shooting" is either a non-notable news story or you'll dismiss it out-right as "incomparable." You asked a question, I answered, tough tits for you if you didn't like my answer.

[QUOTE]I never even claimed more guns equals more violence,[/QUOTE]I never claimed you did.

[Fate]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50944954]Your GitHub says you're in Plymouth, so I searched up and [url=http://news.sky.com/story/polish-familys-shed-ruined-in-racist-attack-10495419]I found this article about a grenade attack[/url] so I hope you're not Polish.
[/quote]
I'm not :v:
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50944954]
From my perspective as somebody with Polish heritage I think your country is the more dangerous one.
[/quote]
Based on one attack? That's pretty ridiculous.

[quote]Minnesota simply isn't as violent as you're pretending it is, and our gun ownership rates are steadily increasing every year. Still not very violent, my firearms are basically redundant at this point and I don't expect that to change in the future. Oh, and you don't seem to understand what "sort of" means. I'm aware News articles aren't stats.[/QUOTE]
I've never claimed anything about Minnesota or how violent it is :v:

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945021]I'm not :v:[/QUOTE]Well I'm just going to [I]pretend.[/I]
[QUOTE]Based on one attack? That's pretty ridiculous.[/QUOTE]No more ridiculous than trying to compare the statistics of one country to another which is what you've done, in that big post you've scrolled past I did cover that. Violence is not the cause of any one thing, I blame the war on drugs up there but truthfully that's just a significant factor and not the [I]only[/I] factor which is a critical point. Remove the war on drugs and the nature of the violence problem changes, but I doubt it would evaporate entirely. Attacking gun rights would create a [B]massive[/B] violence problem and it wouldn't solve any of the other problems, I'm pretty sure that makes that avenue of approach a terrible idea.

Meanwhile at the end of the day a fundamental fact remains: laws only matter if you care about them.

[QUOTE]I've never claimed anything about Minnesota or how violent it is :v:[/QUOTE]Except that was your whole fucking point ever since you first quoted me, you've been trying to assert that Sweden is such a wonderful, magical place compared to the grim hellhole I live in.

[Anderan]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945016]You're disputing it so we're talking about it? Anyway it is, I don't know why you would exempt something that can equally kill you dead as a housefire, car crash, or something similar as a non-issue and not prepare for it. During the Rodney King riots Korean shopowners kept looters at bay because the cops were out of reach, I [I]think[/I] if you live in an urban area that might suffer a catastrophic natural disaster creating a similar lawless scenario then it might be a good idea to own a gun.[/quote]

I'm disputing whether or not a gun is a basic level of preparedness, not whether or not you should prepare for a disaster. Those same store owners could have kept looters at bay with bars on their windows and doors which wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to have if their stores are in an urban area.

[quote]
You're entirely assuming that I would actually shoot at the first person I saw who looked remotely threatening. I'd be more concerned with evacuation and getting people out, if somebody shoots at me only then will I draw and return fire, not before.[/quote]

What training or experience do you have to be so assured that you'd be that calm in such a disaster. With out one or the other I have literally no reason to assume you're going to be the one to rise up and lead everyone to safety.

[quote]Baseless conjecture, you have literally no way to prove any of that while any scenario I bring up where somebody used their CCW to end a "mass shooting" is either a non-notable news story or you'll dismiss it out-right as "incomparable." You asked a question, I answered, tough tits for you if you didn't like my answer.[/quote]

It's funny you accuse me of baseless conjecture and then instantly throw out a bunch of baseless conjecture about how I would react. Both instances are a surprise attack with automatic weapons on a densely packed public place, so long as they shoot first there are going to be mass casualties.

[quote]I never claimed you did.[/QUOTE]

Then why even say it?

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945040]Attacking gun rights would create a [B]massive[/B] violence problem and it wouldn't solve any of the other problems, I'm pretty sure that makes that avenue of approach a terrible idea.[/QUOTE]

depends on the law

restricting gun ownership of people who have committed domestic abuse is a workable policy that actually reduces violence, death, and injury

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50944954]Your GitHub says you're in Plymouth, so I searched up and [url=http://news.sky.com/story/polish-familys-shed-ruined-in-racist-attack-10495419]I found this article about a grenade attack[/url] so I hope you're not Polish.

From my perspective as somebody with Polish heritage I think your country is the more dangerous one.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't argue that way considering that as a Pole myself I would say America is probably more dangerous regardless of the attacks. There's racist attacks here, but gun homicide is still far far lower.

[Samiam]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945040]Except that was your whole fucking point ever since you first quoted me, you've been trying to assert that Sweden is such a wonderful, magical place compared to the grim hellhole I live in.[/QUOTE]

He hasn't done that. He (and I) have stated that Sweden has a far lesser homicide rate than the US and that is a [I]fact[/I].

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=Anderan;50945052]I'm disputing whether or not a gun is a basic level of preparedness, not whether or not you should prepare for a disaster. Those same store owners could have kept looters at bay with bars on their windows and doors which wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to have if their stores are in an urban area.[/QUOTE]Uh, no, bars and doors don't stop arson which is a big fucking problem when rioters are attacking firemen. Even if there's no possibility for violence, (yes, I will call anyone an idiot if they honestly expect that violence is an impossibility) a firearm is an amazing survival tool under any circumstances. Eschewing one when you could make full use of it is stupid, only an idiot makes an already dangerous situation worse.
[QUOTE]What training or experience do you have to be so assured that you'd be that calm in such a disaster.[/QUOTE]Well, I have been shot at before so there is that. Granted I wasn't the target, but bullets were moving in my direction and I had to move so I didn't catch one. (that would have been bad)
[QUOTE]It's funny you accuse me of baseless conjecture and then instantly throw out a bunch of baseless conjecture about how I would react.[/QUOTE][I]Except you just fucking did that. I have a base, I'm using you.[/I]

[sir whoopsalot]

[QUOTE=Skanic;50944994]Find it funny that people say how save Sweden when its the capital of rape in Europe.[/QUOTE]

Personally, I think it's funnier watching JumpinJackFlash act like such a stereotype.

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50945078]He hasn't done that. He (and I) have stated that Sweden has a far lesser homicide rate than the US and that is a [I]fact[/I].[/QUOTE]Hmm.[QUOTE=SataniX;50944528]Yeah, but just because that's possible doesn't make him not safer.

He's safer because he doesn't have 10 million armed idiots running around.[/QUOTE]

Seems like a pretty clear implication to me.

[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;50945087]Personally, I think it's funnier watching JumpinJackFlash act like such a stereotype.[/QUOTE]This contributes what, exactly?

[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]

No, really, beyond a shitpost what are you adding to this discussion?

[Fate]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945040]Well I'm just going to [I]pretend.[/I]
No more ridiculous than trying to compare the statistics of one country to another which is what you've done
[/quote]
Okay now I'm sure you're trolling :v:
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945040]
Except that was your whole fucking point ever since you first quoted me, you've been trying to assert that Sweden is such a wonderful, magical place compared to the grim hellhole I live in.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if you didn't totally strawman what I'm saying you wouldn't be so defensive.

My two points were that Sweden is safer in general, and that [url=http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full#ref-30]increasing the amount of guns is never going to improve safety.[/url]

tl;dr It's pretty fucking obvious that bringing more guns into a situation is rarely going to improve the situation since it makes the only option escalation.

[Headhumpy]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945094]This contributes what, exactly?

[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]

No, really, beyond a shitpost what are you adding to this discussion?[/QUOTE]

well frankly I stopped reading the posts in this thread because it's always the same old arguments rehashed and repeated ad nauseam so at least his avatar is nicer to look at than yours

[Samiam]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945094]Hmm.

Seems like a pretty clear implication to me.

[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]

This contributes what, exactly?

[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]

No, really, beyond a shitpost what are you adding to this discussion?[/QUOTE]

You need to chill out. A borderline paranoid claiming that he's more likely to win the lottery than be shot yet absolutely insisting that he [I]needs[/I] his guns while lashing out rabidly when someone dare suggest that he doesn't have to have one is pretty indicative of bias and honestly isn't doing you any favours with those who don't already agree with you.

The shot at Sir Whoopsalot is a prime example. He was being a bit snarky, but what he said is simple, you're acting like a stereotype, a caricature of an American so bizarrely obsessed with needing to own a gun that he doesn't know how crazy he sounds to other people.

[Anderan]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945085]Uh, no, bars and doors don't stop arson which is a big fucking problem when rioters are attacking firemen. Even if there's no possibility for violence, (yes, I will call anyone an idiot if they honestly expect that violence is an impossibility) a firearm is an amazing survival tool under any circumstances. Eschewing one when you could make full use of it is stupid, only an idiot makes an already dangerous situation worse.[/quote]
I'm not debating whether or not a gun is a useful tool, I'm debating how effective a gun would be during a school shooting and whether that effectiveness is enough to justify allowing them onto campus. A first aid kit is a good survival tool, do you carry one around at all times?

[quote]Well, I have been shot at before so there is that. Granted I wasn't the target, but bullets were moving in my direction and I had to move so I didn't catch one. (that would have been bad)[/quote]
So you reacted to this situation with perfect clarity and lead all the civilians to safety? Can you back this story up?

[quote]
[I]Except you just fucking did that. I have a base, I'm using you.[/I][/QUOTE]

You claimed I would dismiss any news story or scenario you brought up wherein people used their CCW to end the crisis. Except you just brought up Bataclan and Pulse, two examples where the shooters were killed by police.

Again, I'm debating if CCWs would be as effective at stopping or preventing school shootings as you claim and if its effective enough to consider it a basic preparedness. Hell body armor can be a helpful way to stop from getting killed in a shooting, especially if you happen to be among the first victims.

In a previous thread I brought up the statistics as to how many mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians and it was something like 3% and yet all the pro-gun people dismissed it with "but that's just because people couldn't bring their guns there!"

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945106]Okay now I'm sure you're trolling :v:

Maybe if you didn't totally strawman what I'm saying you wouldn't be so defensive.

My two points were that Sweden is safer in general, and that [url=http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full#ref-30]increasing the amount of guns is never going to improve safety.[/url][/QUOTE]It's funny that you talk about strawman arguments because nowhere in this thread did I say adding more guns to anything improves safety for everyone, I did imply it though a few posts up so you've finally gotten me to arguing your original strawman. Good job, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with your theory because just scrolling through the sources in the article you've posted puts up some red flags. I'm sure you'd get after me if I posted a blatantly pro-gun propaganda piece, but I'm not going to do that. Instead I'll pass over your article because that is [I]a lot[/I] of shit I don't want to read especially since my stance on the article's subject is, "don't care, gonna do it anyway." I realize this is going to just burn your ass but that's just how I feel about it, I have a gun in my home because it might possibly give me an edge on a home invader. Tough tits.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50945128]You need to chill out.[/QUOTE]Unless you're implying my growing arousal needs to stop, I don't know what you're talking about. That's unrelated to you and this discussion by the way, I love guns but not [U]that[/U] much. (close though)
[QUOTE]A borderline paranoid[/QUOTE]No... I think you're the one who needs to chill out, buttercup.
[QUOTE]claiming that he's more likely to win the lottery than be shot yet absolutely insisting that he [I]needs[/I] his guns while lashing out rabidly when someone dare suggest that he doesn't have to have one.[/QUOTE]Alright fine, I don't actually know the odds of winning the lottery. [I]You got me![/I] Thing is though I'm not "lashing out" at anyone, this started out as a big eye-roll from me as I posted with mild annoyance toward you and yeah, maybe being mean wasn't called for but now we're just having a discussion. "Bants" is what it's called in the Commonwealth nations, right? I don't know.

[QUOTE]The shot at Sir Whoopsalot is a prime example. He was being a bit snarky, but what he said is simple, you're acting like a stereotype, a caricature of an American so bizarrely obsessed with needing to own a gun that he doesn't know how crazy he sounds to other people.[/QUOTE]Have you ever considered that I don't care what you think? Really it's none of your business, this has [U]nothing[/U] to do with you at all and if I sold all my guns tomorrow it would mean precisely dick to you. We're an ocean away, across the largest fucking ocean actually, so if I sound crazy to you or to some fucking Dutch guy then whatever. I don't care. I already expressed a disinterested in your personal life and yet here you are obsessing over mine and my rights.

I'll admit knowing you're bothered by my gun ownership makes me smirk a little bit, but it's not like I'm sitting here stroking my fifty gorillion assault rifles cackling madly as I munch on MREs and fantasize about getting into running gun battles with Chinese paratroopers.

That's for when I go to sleep.

[Samiam]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945164]Have you ever considered that I don't care what you think? Really it's none of your business, this has [U]nothing[/U] to do with you at all and if I sold all my guns tomorrow it would mean precisely dick to you. We're an ocean away, across the largest fucking ocean actually, so if I sound crazy to you or to some fucking Dutch guy then whatever. I don't care. I already expressed a disinterested in your personal life and yet here you are obsessing over mine and my rights.

I'll admit knowing you're bothered by my gun ownership makes me smirk a little bit, but it's not like I'm sitting here stroking my fifty gorillion assault rifles cackling madly as I munch on MREs and fantasize about getting into running gun battles with Chinese paratroopers.

That's for when I go to sleep.[/QUOTE]

Someone is unironically telling me this and thinks I'm the one who needs to chill out.

If you really didn't care what we thought, why go to such great lengths to justify yourself?

[Fate]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945164]I'm going to respectfully disagree with your theory because just scrolling through the sources in the article you've posted puts up some red flags.
[/quote]
Disagreeing with peer-reviewed studies because you don't like them? :v:
[quote]
Have you ever considered that I don't care what you think?[/QUOTE]
People don't try and justify themselves over several pages if they don't care.

[sir whoopsalot]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945164]It's funny that you talk about strawman arguments because nowhere in this thread did I say adding more guns to anything improves safety for everyone, I did imply it though a few posts up so you've finally gotten me to arguing your original strawman. Good job, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with your theory because just scrolling through the sources in the article you've posted puts up some red flags. I'm sure you'd get after me if I posted a blatantly pro-gun propaganda piece, but I'm not going to do that. Instead I'll pass over your article because that is [I]a lot[/I] of shit I don't want to read especially since my stance on the article's subject is, "don't care, gonna do it anyway." I realize this is going to just burn your ass but that's just how I feel about it, I have a gun in my home because it might possibly give me an edge on a home invader. Tough tits.

Unless you're implying my growing arousal needs to stop, I don't know what you're talking about. That's unrelated to you and this discussion by the way, I love guns but not [U]that[/U] much. (close though)
No... I think you're the one who needs to chill out, buttercup.
Alright fine, I don't actually know the odds of winning the lottery. [I]You got me![/I] Thing is though I'm not "lashing out" at anyone, this started out as a big eye-roll from me as I posted with mild annoyance toward you and yeah, maybe being mean wasn't called for but now we're just having a discussion. "Bants" is what it's called in the Commonwealth nations, right? I don't know.

Have you ever considered that I don't care what you think? Really it's none of your business, this has [U]nothing[/U] to do with you at all and if I sold all my guns tomorrow it would mean precisely dick to you. We're an ocean away, across the largest fucking ocean actually, so if I sound crazy to you or to some fucking Dutch guy then whatever. I don't care. I already expressed a disinterested in your personal life and yet here you are obsessing over mine and my rights.

I'll admit knowing you're bothered by my gun ownership makes me smirk a little bit, but it's not like I'm sitting here stroking my fifty gorillion assault rifles cackling madly as I munch on MREs and fantasize about getting into running gun battles with Chinese paratroopers.

That's for when I go to sleep.[/QUOTE]

"I don't care" and "You're the one who needs to chill out", he says while typing mountains of text defending himself, laden with vitriol and smug superiority.

Tell me I'm shitposting as much as you like, you [I]are[/I] being an almost comical caricature of Americans and their obsession with gun culture.

[Grenadiac]

[QUOTE=Anderan;50945137]In a previous thread I brought up the statistics as to how many mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians and it was something like 3% and yet all the pro-gun people dismissed it with "but that's just because people couldn't bring their guns there!"[/QUOTE]

On a previous page I broke down this argument and it was dismissed by anti-gun people with "heh [I]it doesnt matter because i said so LOL[/I]"

If you people were actually concerned with reality you could start by using facts in your arguments and not twisted statistics

Frankly it's no wonder Flash is getting pissed, he's arguing with brick walls anonymous

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=Anderan;50945137]I'm not debating whether or not a gun is a useful tool, I'm debating how effective a gun would be during a school shooting[/QUOTE]Full stop this is not what I was talking about and I don't even know why you're trying to shoehorn this shit in here. You've done it post after post and I've been saying things like "hey, I answered, tough tits" to try and kill off that irrelevant bullshit. I've clearly been trying to assert that yeah, a firearm is good for home defense and [I]in that same fucking post you quoted[/I] I say it's an "amazing survival tool" which is a far fucking cry from patrolling the neighborhood like The Zimzam which is where you seem to be going with this.

Why I don't know.

[QUOTE]So you reacted to this situation with perfect clarity and lead all the civilians to safety? Can you back this story up?[/QUOTE]This made me laugh because it's an attempt to escalate your dumb point into some big argument. No. I only answered with that because you asked me what "training" I had, I said I was shot at. Some training! Evidently I'm basically in the Naby SEAL Force Recon now because you've ran with that and are asking details about my riveting encounter that didn't make the news and I have no way of substantiating so you can get the argument [I]you[/I] wanted.

[QUOTE]You claimed I would dismiss any news story or scenario you brought up wherein people used their CCW to end the crisis. Except you just brought up Bataclan and Pulse, two examples where the shooters were killed by police.[/QUOTE]I brought them up because both instances had a lot of unarmed people and very armed attackers, which in hindsight was a dumb thing to do because you've all but ditched whatever I was talking about presumably because I'm the only guy in earshot right now willing to play. I'm about to kick this ball over the fence and tell you to have fun by yourself.

[QUOTE]Again, I'm debating if CCWs would be as effective at stopping or preventing school shootings as you claim and if its effective enough to consider it a basic preparedness.[/QUOTE]Incredible, you took my original statement here:[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50944926]Probably based on the guy who's actually killing people, I'd rather have "friendly fire" than a crowd of people unable to resist being slaughtered wholesale; Bataclan and the Pulse shootings come to mind. That is of course assuming it even happens, I don't know why this isn't plainly obvious to you but [I]it seems[/I] that people who like to kill random strangers prefer if they're unarmed and thus shootings at firing ranges are rather rare. Using the logic that more guns equals more violence [I]they[/I] should be the sites of constant massacres but it seems that reality disagrees with that theory.[/QUOTE]
Then you turned it into school schootings. I'm not going to read through the first page of the thread so answer me honestly, am I right in assuming you're just taking an old argument and putting it to me and hoping it sticks?

[Headhumpy]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945164]It's funny that you talk about strawman arguments because nowhere in this thread did I say adding more guns to anything improves safety for everyone, I did imply it though a few posts up so you've finally gotten me to arguing your original strawman. Good job, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with your theory because just scrolling through the sources in the article you've posted puts up some red flags. I'm sure you'd get after me if I posted a blatantly pro-gun propaganda piece, but I'm not going to do that. Instead I'll pass over your article because that is [I]a lot[/I] of shit I don't want to read especially since my stance on the article's subject is, "don't care, gonna do it anyway." I realize this is going to just burn your ass but that's just how I feel about it, I have a gun in my home because it might possibly give me an edge on a home invader. Tough tits.

Unless you're implying my growing arousal needs to stop, I don't know what you're talking about. That's unrelated to you and this discussion by the way, I love guns but not [U]that[/U] much. (close though)
No... I think you're the one who needs to chill out, buttercup.
Alright fine, I don't actually know the odds of winning the lottery. [I]You got me![/I] Thing is though I'm not "lashing out" at anyone, this started out as a big eye-roll from me as I posted with mild annoyance toward you and yeah, maybe being mean wasn't called for but now we're just having a discussion. "Bants" is what it's called in the Commonwealth nations, right? I don't know.

Have you ever considered that I don't care what you think? Really it's none of your business, this has [U]nothing[/U] to do with you at all and if I sold all my guns tomorrow it would mean precisely dick to you. We're an ocean away, across the largest fucking ocean actually, so if I sound crazy to you or to some fucking Dutch guy then whatever. I don't care. I already expressed a disinterested in your personal life and yet here you are obsessing over mine and my rights.

I'll admit knowing you're bothered by my gun ownership makes me smirk a little bit, but it's not like I'm sitting here stroking my fifty gorillion assault rifles cackling madly as I munch on MREs and fantasize about getting into running gun battles with Chinese paratroopers.

That's for when I go to sleep.[/QUOTE]

"I don't care what you think, here's a 2,000 word essay explaining why."

[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]

[Samiam]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945202]On a previous page I broke down this argument and it was dismissed by anti-gun people with "heh [I]it doesnt matter because i said so LOL[/I]"

If you people were actually concerned with reality you could start by using facts in your arguments and not twisted statistics

Frankly it's no wonder Flash is getting pissed, he's arguing with brick walls anonymous[/QUOTE]

Are you meaning the argument with me? I responded to the last thing you said and didn't get a reply. I don't understand how what I said could be interpreted as "'heh it doesnt matter because i said so lol".

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50945181]Someone is unironically telling me this and thinks I'm the one who needs to chill out.

If you really didn't care what we thought, why go to such great lengths to justify yourself?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=SataniX;50945188]People don't try and justify themselves over several pages if they don't care.[/QUOTE]I'm having fun? I mean I even gave you both big wordy posts and now we're down to discussing how much I care.

[QUOTE=SataniX;50945188]Disagreeing with peer-reviewed studies because you don't like them? :v:[/QUOTE]I already said why I disagreed with [I]you[/I] and I expressed skepticism over the study, but I admitted that I'm too lazy to read it fully. I did address it's point though.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;50945198]"I don't care" and "You're the one who needs to chill out", he says while typing mountains of text defending himself, laden with vitriol and smug superiority.

Tell me I'm shitposting as much as you like, you [I]are[/I] being an almost comical caricature of Americans and their obsession with gun culture.[/QUOTE][I]"Well you're actually a comical caricature of a European upset at how much freedom I have,"[/I] said the American as he munched on his burgers.

I mean what the hell do you want me to say? Sorry for swearing? I'm not sorry. I swear. I make big posts. I don't see why this made you so angry but okay, whatever.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50945202]Frankly it's no wonder Flash is getting pissed, he's arguing with brick walls anonymous[/QUOTE][I]But I'm not actually angry.[/I] What the hell.

[Fate]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945231]
[I]But I'm not actually angry.[/I] What the hell.[/QUOTE]
Then you're naturally overly aggressive. Hardly surprising considering how paranoid you're coming across.

[quote]
I already said why I disagreed with you and I expressed skepticism over the study, but I admitted that I'm too lazy to read it fully. I did address it's point though.
[/quote]
If you think your personal opinion is somehow more correct than peer-reviewed studies then I can't really argue with you.

[sir whoopsalot]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50945231]I don't see why this made you so angry but okay, whatever.

[I]But I'm not actually angry.[/I] What the hell.[/QUOTE]

Oh, you aren't angry. That explains the condescending attitude and constant insults. And judging from you continuing to make big ol' posts defending yourself, I can totally see how you don't care about our opinions. Okay, got it.

I mean, the alternative is that you're being an overly paranoid, smugly superior dickwad who just can't fathom people disagreeing with him. But that's just ludicrous.