Man Gets 100 Years for Accidentally Killing His 8-Year-Old Daughter While Trying to Shoot His 18-Year-Old Son
Man Gets 100 Years for Accidentally Killing His 8-Year-Old Daughter While Trying to Shoot His 18-Year-Old Son
Tony Valez, 66, flew into a rage when he thought he was being evicted from his home, authorities said.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Is a fire extinguisher a necessity when there is no fire? Is a hammer a necessity when you have no nails? No, but you can't conjure one out of your asshole when you do need one. You have to be prepared and have the tool for the job before you need it or you're shit out of luck. It's kinda like that.
Plenty of people who have food also die, does that mean food isn't a necessity? You don't need food currently if you aren't currently hungry, does that make it not a necessity?
If it isn't needed for defense then a ban also isn't needed, because crime is what you "defense" from, so if there is no crime why ban them? Let the IDPA continue.
odds were that you would be carrying.
Actually, though rates of gun ownership are growing (fastest growing new groups are black women, women [all], and gays), still only less than 50% actually owns all those guns, and less than 25% carry them. Odds are that I wouldn't have one even in America, but he bet wrong. Don't get me wrong, that 50% owns more guns and ammo then your country's entire military, but that is still only 50% of people and not quite even that, it's more like 48%. Turns out though, yeah, criminals aren't too happy about having one pointed at 'em, and I know you support the violent criminals bent on victimizing people they perceive as weaker, but I'm on the other side.
because of the odds that you'll get murdered with one
See, that's the thing, this isn't true. Our defensive gun use per year is comservatively estimated by Harvard (in an anti gun hit piece against the "myth" of the "good guy with a gun") at 100,000 per year. Well, our rate of intentional firearm homicide is only 12,000 a year. I believe you'll find that 100,000> 12,000 by 88,000.
never take a car ever again because of the odds that you'll get into an accident
Been in 4, used to drive pizza. Airbags, seatbelts. Manual safeties, trigger safties, grip safties, not pointing the gun at things that aren't targets, not putting your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire. Safties all around.
and you shouldn't have a kid because
Stopped reading. I agree.
But you realise that the homicide rate is going up, not down, while gun ownership is going up, right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
You're so hell bent on defending your right to have a gun that you forget the definition of words. Again, if they were necessary then you wouldn't have people around you that didn't own them because all of them would be dead, that's what needing something implies. Stop eating food for a couple of months and you'll understand the difference between desires and needs.
Just because the ownership rate is going up doesn't mean people need one, it could simply mean people are scared and the population is divided so they try to find a way to reassure themselves, just like you're doing, but the need is to solve the underlying issue.
Like someone who's depressed, they can start taking anti depressants and live like that for the rest of their life, but what they actually need is help to solve the underlying issue, if that doesn't happen all that leads to is more and more people on anti depressants.
It had been going down from '93-2016 and gun sales were rising. Remind me, did anything else happen in this country in and since 2016? Anything that maybe could have contributed to violence like political or economic issues? There are more than one variable at play in real life situations, not everything can be boiled down to "gun," it's the same thinking as the racists who try to boil down everything to "black," it's just narrow minded and refusing to look at the bigger picture, like the actual causes of violence in the case of guns, or overpolicing of black neighborhoods because of racist police.
Lmao people do die, every single day, because they were the victim of a violent crime and lacked the appropriate defensive tools. That fits your definition of "need" which hinges solely on survival. By that logic, literally all anyone ever needs is food, water, and shelter, even when said shelter is actively on fire from the food you cooked, then they don't need a fire extinguisher, because it isn't potable, edible, nor good building material. You're being obtuse and you know it lol.
Glad to see you understand that what's a necessity is to solve the other issues that lead to violence, so we agree that guns aren't a necessity to the vast majority of people, some just make the choice to want a gun to protect themselves while others don't (proof that guns aren't needed).
Good talk 👍
Lol, no, me making fun of your ridiculous definition of "need" is the complete opposite of agreeing. I prefer the definition the rest of the world uses, y'know, the nondelusional people.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/need
noun A condition or situation in which something must be supplied in order for a certain condition to be maintained or a desired state to be achieved. noun Something required or wanted; a requisite. noun Necessity; obligation. noun A condition of poverty or misfortune. intransitive verb To be under the necessity of or the obligation to. intransitive verb To have need of; require. intransitive verb To have an obligation (to do something). intransitive verb To be subject (to an action) by obligation. intransitive verb To want to be subject to. intransitive verb To be in need or want. intransitive verb To be necessary.
Not one of those mentions "will die without." That's you. You aren't the arbiter of definitions no matter what your delusions of grandeur convince you of.
Yep yep, like I was saying, nice to see someone able to accept they're wrong 👍
Lol you may be the most delusional person I've ever met.
Oh you got it buddy, nothing like two friends agreeing 👍
OOOHHH I get it, I don't agree with your point so you must mean you've come around to see that the definition of the word itself actually doesn't support your argument at all and now you agree with me.