Sorry. They are of course also good for maiming people and animals. My bad!
I think you should probably cut out the autoerotic strangulation. The repeated oxygen deprivation is, clearly, reducing your cognitive abilities. If you stop now, you might still test out as dull-normal.
That’s two references in a row to breath-taking, pup. Are you trying to tell us something?
No. I just chose the words without noticing the apparent link. Good catch.
Wake up, you Fool! He’s giving us clues to the conspiracy!
The film Top Gun featured a song called You Take My Breath Away, recorded by Berlin. Who in Berlin wanted to *take guns away? *
What one purpose is that?
Collectors items?
Target shooting?
Cowboy Action shooting?
Olympic sports?
Hunting?
The Weimar Republic? Certainly not Hitler, who repealed the gun control laws in effect when he took office.
The same European countries that, when they’ve got their backs against the wall, facing an enemy they can’t defend against, call the USA to help them out?
Those European countries? Or some other ones?
I don’t have to fire a gun to defend myself. Merely drawing it and announcing my intent to use it should be enough to get a bad guy out of my house.
That’s another good use.
It’s probably more likely you’ll blow your own, or a loved one’s head off when you’re feeling sad. Or that the bad guy will steal it, than you’ll use it in self defense.
Not that I think the OP’s video proves anything. I like guns. I shoot things. Pew pew.
People who say shit like this really need to learn what “probability” actually is.
No, I say something like “hey, come on, that’s not cool. Teach her the right way to shoot, and instead of getting a laugh, maybe you’ll get her respect.”
Generally speaking, I was under the impression that those calls were to the US military. Not a random selection of gun owning civilians. And, again generally speaking, we tend to ask for help in things like devastating multinational wars, and not, say, policing actions. So yes, works for European countries.
Well - from here, we see some actual data, including the following:
And also this:
The above was from peer reviewed researched sponsored by the CDC - back before the NRA got funding for gun violence research pulled.
Cool.
We have discussed those before and they are more or less meaningless. For example, one of the reasons why you have a gun in the home for protection is that you live in a high crime neighborhood or that you are worried about a imminent threat . It was also a study with only 420 cases, in 1993.
*First, our study was restricted to homicides occurring in the home of the victim. The dynamics of homicides occurring in other locations (such as bars, retail establishments, or the street) may be quite different… Third, it is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide – i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat. If the source of that threat subsequently caused the homicide, the link between guns in the home and homicide may be due at least in part to the failure of these weapons to provide adequate protection from the assailants.
*
You’d think with such an obviously flawed study floating around, the NRA would have been pushing the CDC to fund more research to shed light on the true value of gun ownership. Instead - they fought to suppress any research for the next 2 decades. One wonders why . . . .
So you say, but you’re an imbecile, so there’s that. Handwaving doesn’t undo empiricism. Empiricism counters empiricism, and one side in this debate has been exceptionally anti-empiricism.
The easiest thing to do would be to ban idiots like you from having access to the internet and the world outside of your basement so your tiny little brain wouldn’t have to be confronted with such horrible things such as freedom.
Here is the counter YouTube video to the OP.