No you didn’t. You searched for each individual word in that phrase, so you’re getting way too many results. The phrase “car drives into a house” yields 83,500 results. If you don’t use quotes around the phrase like you did in your post, then you are actually just searching for “car”, “drives”, “into”, “a”, “house”, which searches for each individual word and gives you all the results.
Do you think the instances of the word “car” being large in a google search somehow supports your point?
Can you show me just where the RNC took any steps at all in that story, for or against batons, clubs, sticks, or airguns?
The thought is that people have an irrational fear of guns that is driven at least in part by unfamiliarity.
Well, sometimes there is a bit of truth in satire and caricature. Not in that one, but sometimes in other cartoons of his.
Huh? I don’t know what you are talking about half the time. I suspect you don’t know what you are talking about half the time as well.
AKA putting words in people’s mouth
AKA making shit up
There is a difference between pointing out how rare accidental gun deaths are (which I assume is the contrxt you are talking about) and saying that I think gun murders are ok.
Or are you just making shit up again and saying that I blow off murder as acceptable?
Just because I think YOU need therapy doesn’t mean that I think everyone who there is a gun problem needs therapy, especially since I think there is a bit of a gun problem (that might be addressed with licensing and registration).
I don’t know about the objective. I think that a lot of fear of guns is driven by ignorance. There is such a thing as a healthy fear of guns and then there is the knee-jerk irrational fear of guns that come from ignorance. I think we should try to fight ignorance where we can.
You’re an idiot.
Huh! What do you know. I didn’t notice the use of the new made up term mass shootings. I assumed that we were talking about mass murders for which we have reliable statistics. If we’re talking about situations where more than 4 people get shot, then 1/day sounds plausible.
Same here. The new Google car doesn’t even have a steering wheel of brakes.
Its a Johnny Cab.
Ooooh, I don’t know about that. Guns are unique in their ability to inflict irrecoverable injury or death on others, so it’s a little trite to say all we have to do is train and license people.
I think gun training is woefully inadequate. It’s so easy to get a CCW. I have one, for a state other than where I live. The training I took to get that CCW was fair at best.
I’m a retired USMC veteran and I’m comfortable with myself carrying and using a gun. But I am not comfortable with all of the other common public who own and carry. Yes that is a double standard, but I’m just being honest with myself, and with you all here, in admitting that.
Heck, not all of the licensed drivers out there can handle being cut off on the road, whether inadvertently or on purpose, without losing their temper. The ones who can’t handle it, well, that often leads to road rage incidents.
There are no easy answers with guns and gun control. I don’t think I want many commoners carrying concealed, though. I doubt their training to respond to a threat is very good.
I think this is a whoosh. It was sarcasm. Though you are right that it searched for individual words in the string. Yay.
And that statement helps illustrate what a sick fuck you are.
Not *my *fault.
AKA holding up a mirror.
“Rare” is a qualitative, judgment-based word. It also illustrates what a sick fuck you are that you even consider using it.
And your “therapy”: More guns, more openly carried. You sick fuck.
Cut the shit and stand up for what you say, coward.
Except you can’t tell us what the fucking difference is - no, when it’s pointed out to you that fear of getting killed by a sicko like you is hardly irrational, you revert to your “therapy” prescription.
IOW you were too fucking lazy to read a cite before denouncing it, instead relying on a text search.
Yes, we should indeed fight ignorance, as you say in that very post. You need to start with your own, and your predilection for wallowing in it.
[Quote=Damuri Ajashi]
Huh! What do you know. I didn’t notice the use of the new made up term mass shootings. I assumed that we were talking about mass murders for which we have reliable statistics. If we’re talking about situations where more than 4 people get shot, then 1/day sounds plausible.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you kind of have to read the article before you can say what it does or does not say.
ETA: Being shot is bad, even if you don’t die.
Oh bullshit. You made a statement that you thought supported your position. Now you are trying to say you were being sarcastic because you are embarrassed that you don’t know how to use google, or know what the total number of results means for a particular search.
Sarcasm usually involves humor. Maybe start working on that for the next time you try it so it isn’t so obviously an after the fact excuse for why you got called out and made to look foolish.
Woosh indeed. Nice try, but no.
Believe whatever you like. If the history of my posts leads you to think the post in question was meant to be taken seriously, and that I was saying that cars run into houses 62M times, that’s your prerogative. Good luck to you.
Ok, whatever you say hoss. Its not that hard to admit that you got this one wrong though. If your ego won’t allow you to do that, that isn’t my problem. Its important to be self-aware though, so you may want to work on that for the future. The only way to learn and grow as a person is to be able to recognize and accept the times when you make a mistake. Trying to retroactively claim that you were attempting humor to avoid feeling embarrassed is the opposite of that.
Pro tip: You may want to refrain from making ‘number of google results’ posts until you get a better grasp of how to search for something.
Here’s more of the same. Fools creating a tense situation.
Do they really think that they’re helping their cause with this nonsense?
The group behind this, Open Carry Texas has a list of goals including:
Their volunteers are going to succeed in doing just the opposite of this, which is probably a good thing as these are the people who will most likely be carrying.
What I meant by that is that is that if I had given the short answer it would be incomplete and used as an example for the no gun crowd. I am simply pointing out that the level of control of every aspect of a soldier’s life is so severe most will not want to under such restrictions. As was pointed out above its an organization that requires all soldiers to wear reflective belts during the daytime in Afghanistan because someone once got hit by a car on base. That gives you an idea what goes into their risk/benefit ratio.
I’ve never had a car with a steering wheel of brakes. Must feel very strange to drive one.
The technical name for braking with a steering wheel is crash.
I don’t agree that’s “more of the same.”
That article describes an escalation that goes well beyond simply exercising the right to carry. I was prepared to discount the article’s conclusions when I read, “…they were displaying intimidating firearms…” That betrays a mindset that is, in my view, foolish.
However – and assuming the story is true, since Mother Jones carried the story of a wheelchair bound anti-gun activist being spat upon that on further investigation turned out to have some credibility issues – the article goes on to detail the open carry activists following an individual and taunting him. That’s absolutely contrary to any valid public relations effort that is supposedly the motivator for these exercises.
Good thing you’re such an expert at where and when law-abiding citizens have a need to defend themselves. I’m sure if there’s ever another massacre in a place where guns are banned, you won’t feel the least bit guilty for being such a busy-body prick.
Just another illiterate moron who opposes the basic self-reliant gun culture our nation was founded on.
Thanks for standing up for rape and assault. Also, thanks for clearly illustrating why anyone who works for the government cannot be trusted. And a final thanks for illustrating the concept of monarchy that was so rightfully gunned down and left to rot by Washington’s army of “commoners.”
There’s no shortage of pretentious asses in the world. Particularly ones that fail to comprehend economic incentives and disincentives.
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
Have you actually read the thread, or are you too much of an illiterate moron to have done so? It’s about the risk/reward ratio. No one’s claiming that massacres don’t occur. The question is whether or not open carry will cause more or less gun violence. The answer to that question isn’t as open and shut as you seem to think. But maybe thinking isn’t your style. You’re more into personal attacks (along with veiled accusations of un-Americanism) which generally indicates that you have no actual arguments. (Yes,I am aware that I’m also resorting to a personal attack, but it’s in response to this fools attack on me. He’s obviously not going to be open to reasoned discussion so I have to stoop to his level.)
Assuming the story is true? There’s a video on that page…