Busted with arms, researched killing Biden

[Sal]

[...]

Do you wear a seatbelt because you are afraid to drive in a car?

That's not being "tooled up", that's a safety precaution in the case of a crash. Even your analogy fails.

I remember a road safety & traffic expert in a documentary that, after having analyzed a few drivers, while driving, on how they drove their cars & trucks, had a quite poignant observation and opinion (paraphrasing): If there was a sharp metal spike right in front of and attached to the center of the steering wheel, constantly in the visual field of the driver while in sitting in the driver's seat looking at the road, instead of wearing a seat belt, people would drive with exceeding caution and responsibility and take driving around considerably more seriously than the people he had observed.

His point was that seat belts, unfortunately necessary due to the nature of driving a vehicle, had an adverse effect of people sense of security while driving. Essentially a false impression that they are less likely to crash their vehicle, because of the seat belts, which is untrue and more likely the opposite case. The likelihood of crashing a vehicle, metal steering spike or seat belt, given the conditions of driving, would be different. And the thought processes behind are certainly markedly different, which do affect how seriously people take driving.

Anyways, y'all over the pond, are "driving around" with "metal spikes" on your "steering wheels".

Can we get back to the issues about this dude in the OP article being caught, please?

[downbeatplumb]

I think for the US, it’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you start by making gun ownership a right, it becomes easy to own a gun (or guns). Over time, the rate of gun ownership skyrockets, which creates fear. Being afraid makes you want to have a gun, which is easy to do because it’s a right. And so on.

New Zealand has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, but I never, ever worry about being shot.

Boru

And Russia and China have much lower rates of per capita firearm ownership......

But you don't see the problem - right?

---

I do feel perfectly safe. My country is mainly a safe country.
That people do not go around "tooled up" here with the possible exception of some farmers may be part of it.
But also we are not fearful people.
I find the fear that permeates america strange. It seems to be the main emotion over there. 

But then as a french girlfriend I had once said to me when a group of young americans went by our table at a cafe in Paris being loud and well american "America is a nation of children".

Where the fuck do idiots like you get these opinions?

Owning a gun makes a gun owner fearful about as much as owning a life jacket makes a sailor fearful.

It's called being prepared.

Do you wear a seatbelt because you are afraid to drive in a car?

Driving is dangerous walking around in my country is not. 

Wearing a seat belt is logical because it not only protects you in the not unusual event of a crash but it is also not a danger to others. The same with life belts.
Guns however are dangerous things. How often do people shoot themselves by accident or a kid gets hold of it and shoot a sibling?

The possible benefits of a gun are outweighed by the significant downsides, the downsides are not present with seat belts or life jackets. 

The only real reason to keep guns is because you like having guns.

---

[...]

Do you wear a seatbelt because you are afraid to drive in a car?

That's not being "tooled up", that's a safety precaution in the case of a crash. Even your analogy fails.

I remember a road safety & traffic expert in a documentary that, after having analyzed a few drivers, while driving, on how they drove their cars & trucks, had a quite poignant observation and opinion (paraphrasing): If there was a sharp metal spike right in front of and attached to the center of the steering wheel, constantly in the visual field of the driver while in sitting in the driver's seat looking at the road, instead of wearing a seat belt, people would drive with exceeding caution and responsibility and take driving around considerably more seriously than the people he had observed.

His point was that seat belts, unfortunately necessary due to the nature of driving a vehicle, had an adverse effect of people sense of security while driving. Essentially a false impression that they are less likely to crash their vehicle, because of the seat belts, which is untrue and more likely the opposite case. The likelihood of crashing a vehicle, metal steering spike or seat belt, given the conditions of driving, would be different. And the thought processes behind are certainly markedly different, which do affect how seriously people take driving.

Anyways, y'all over the pond, are "driving around" with "metal spikes" on your "steering wheels".

Can we get back to the issues about this dude in the OP article being caught, please?

That would be the "Tullock spike".

[onlinebiker]

And Russia and China have much lower rates of per capita firearm ownership......

But you don't see the problem - right?

---

No, I really don’t. Could you explain it to me, please?

Boru

Probably not as you all have been sucessfully conditioned to hate and fear firearms.

[Foxaèr]

I cannot think of a gun having one redeeming quality.

[Sal]

And Russia and China have much lower rates of per capita firearm ownership......

But you don't see the problem - right?

---

Where the fuck do idiots like you get these opinions?

Owning a gun makes a gun owner fearful about as much as owning a life jacket makes a sailor fearful.

It's called being prepared.

Do you wear a seatbelt because you are afraid to drive in a car?

Driving is dangerous walking around in my country is not. 

Wearing a seat belt is logical because it not only protects you in the not unusual event of a crash but it is also not a danger to others. The same with life belts.
Guns however are dangerous things. How often do people shoot themselves by accident or a kid gets hold of it and shoot a sibling?

The possible benefits of a gun are outweighed by the significant downsides, the downsides are not present with seat belts or life jackets. 

The only real reason to keep guns is because you like having guns.

---

That's not being "tooled up", that's a safety precaution in the case of a crash. Even your analogy fails.

I remember a road safety & traffic expert in a documentary that, after having analyzed a few drivers, while driving, on how they drove their cars & trucks, had a quite poignant observation and opinion (paraphrasing): If there was a sharp metal spike right in front of and attached to the center of the steering wheel, constantly in the visual field of the driver while in sitting in the driver's seat looking at the road, instead of wearing a seat belt, people would drive with exceeding caution and responsibility and take driving around considerably more seriously than the people he had observed.

His point was that seat belts, unfortunately necessary due to the nature of driving a vehicle, had an adverse effect of people sense of security while driving. Essentially a false impression that they are less likely to crash their vehicle, because of the seat belts, which is untrue and more likely the opposite case. The likelihood of crashing a vehicle, metal steering spike or seat belt, given the conditions of driving, would be different. And the thought processes behind are certainly markedly different, which do affect how seriously people take driving.

Anyways, y'all over the pond, are "driving around" with "metal spikes" on your "steering wheels".

Can we get back to the issues about this dude in the OP article being caught, please?

That would be the "Tullock spike".

That's exactly that dude! I couldn't, for the life of me, remember his name, but I did remember what Gordon Tullock had proposed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/business/...index.html

[Angrboda]

No, I really don’t. Could you explain it to me, please?

Boru

Probably not as you all have been sucessfully conditioned to hate and fear firearms.

You are a joke. All you've got is invective. You can't convince people because you suck at it, not because the other person is incapable of being persuaded.

[onlinebiker]

Probably not as you all have been sucessfully conditioned to hate and fear firearms.

You are a joke.  All you've got is invective.  You can't convince people because you suck at it, not because the other person is incapable of being persuaded.

The real joke?

The media jerking you off and you don't even question it - because it fits what you already think.

I give Boru the most credit here - for admitting that guns were mentioned first - even before pedophilia - for no other reason than sensationalism.

Maybe when they start going after atheists in the headlines you will notice.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, I really don’t. Could you explain it to me, please?

Boru

Probably not as you all have been sucessfully conditioned to hate and fear firearms.

But I haven’t been and I don’t. Since there are going to be firearms in any case, I’d prefer they be in the hands of safety-minded, responsible people. If you object to that position, I have to conclude that you support the possession of firearms by unsafe, irresponsible people.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Probably not as you all have been sucessfully conditioned to hate and fear firearms.

But I haven’t been and I don’t. Since there are going to be firearms in any case, I’d prefer they be in the hands of safety-minded, responsible people. If you object to that position, I have to conclude that you support the possession of firearms by unsafe, irresponsible people.



Boru

You can conclude whatever you like.

It's easy when you play the "either/or" game the way you are.

Doesn't mean you're right.

And you ain't.