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.
I thought you agreed with me after proving times and times again that guns aren’t a necessity, funny that… It’s funny because all that you said pointed to that from the get go… Weird.
You never said how people manage to go their whole life without them if they’re a necessity , I mean, if something is necessary then you would expect everyone to have it, right? Oxford defines the word necessity as “the fact of being required or indispensable” and I mean… If something is indispensable then it’s impossible to go without it… Heck, even the guy who attacked you didn’t consider them a necessity cuz that’s what he would have pointed at you if he did, right? Heck, how can the government decides that some people can’t get to have something that is indispensable? That’s exactly what gun control is, isn’t it? Let’s think about things that are indispensable… Government making it illegal for some people to eat? Impossible… To be clothed? No… To breathe? As if…
Hell… If they’re a necessity you should be against gun control and you should be fighting to get a gun in the hand of every single human being! What are people doing without something that is necessary??? 😱
How do people go a whole lifetime without swinging a fire extinguisher? Their house never catches on fire. BUT if it does catch fire, the fire extinguisher becomes a necessity because it is the tool they need for the task at hand. How do people go their whole lives without needing a gun? Luck. You don’t get to choose when or if you’re violently attacked just as you don’t usually choose when your house burns down (save for arsonists), and I bet most people would choose not to be, but the attacker also gets a say in this. You may not need one right now but if a more physically fit guy is attempting to kill you, it then becomes necessary unless you want to just die. If you’re lucky enough not to have that happen to you ever in life, great! But you don’t get to decide that. Same for seatbelts, how can someone go their entire life without needing a seatbelt? They never get in a car crash. However, if they do get in a car crash, the seatbelt becomes a necessity. Same for airbags.
Clothes are a necessity? Nuh uh, if you never leave your house you can be naked forever, get a WFH job and order groceries. You don’t need clothes to live. See? That’s your argument. It is patently ridiculous.
What doesn’t work with your comparison with fire extinguishers and seat belts is that there’s no drawbacks to them and there’s no alternative permanent solution (except public transit, but even there seatbelts wouldn’t be a bad thing to have). People also go without both for all their lives so we’re very far from food, love, water and so on.
Right now you’re arguing guns are a necessity like you were saying fire extinguishers are a necessity because of pyromaniacs or seatbelts are necessary because of people who commit suicide by car crash, two statistically insignificant events, so insignificant that if they were the only reason things caught on fire/people died in car crashes, neither fire extinguishers or seatbelts would exist. The way you interpret statistics I bet your retirement plan is to win the lottery!
It’s ok you lived a traumatic event that shaped your vision of the world, what your need isn’t a gun, it’s too see a psychologist, just like the world you live in, it doesn’t need more weapons, it needs more social support so people don’t want to own weapons.
And yes, clothings are worn by people all over the world even in climates where people could go naked at all times and are at the base of the pyramid of needs.
Unfortunately the definition I’m required to work within to suit your narrow brain is “will die without = need” you don’t NEED a seatbelt if you don’t get in a crash, you can’t move the goalposts NOW and say “well theres no drawbacks.” Drawbacks are NOT in your definition of necessity.
People ALSO go without love their whole lives. Your argument is falling apart at the seams, you can’t even keep up with it anymore lmao. You can’t even keep up with my argument either, and I’m not the one changing mine. We’re done here lmao.
Sorry if I use the actual definition of words and see the difference between what is needed to solve an issue vs what is done to circumvent it.
Good luck next time you get attacked, cross your fingers they don’t decide to just go for it because stats aren’t on your side (not that you understand them anyway).
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.
I thought you agreed with me after proving times and times again that guns aren’t a necessity, funny that… It’s funny because all that you said pointed to that from the get go… Weird.
Well by the definition if necessity they are, so…
You never said how people manage to go their whole life without them if they’re a necessity , I mean, if something is necessary then you would expect everyone to have it, right? Oxford defines the word necessity as “the fact of being required or indispensable” and I mean… If something is indispensable then it’s impossible to go without it… Heck, even the guy who attacked you didn’t consider them a necessity cuz that’s what he would have pointed at you if he did, right? Heck, how can the government decides that some people can’t get to have something that is indispensable? That’s exactly what gun control is, isn’t it? Let’s think about things that are indispensable… Government making it illegal for some people to eat? Impossible… To be clothed? No… To breathe? As if…
Hell… If they’re a necessity you should be against gun control and you should be fighting to get a gun in the hand of every single human being! What are people doing without something that is necessary??? 😱
How do people go a whole lifetime without swinging a fire extinguisher? Their house never catches on fire. BUT if it does catch fire, the fire extinguisher becomes a necessity because it is the tool they need for the task at hand. How do people go their whole lives without needing a gun? Luck. You don’t get to choose when or if you’re violently attacked just as you don’t usually choose when your house burns down (save for arsonists), and I bet most people would choose not to be, but the attacker also gets a say in this. You may not need one right now but if a more physically fit guy is attempting to kill you, it then becomes necessary unless you want to just die. If you’re lucky enough not to have that happen to you ever in life, great! But you don’t get to decide that. Same for seatbelts, how can someone go their entire life without needing a seatbelt? They never get in a car crash. However, if they do get in a car crash, the seatbelt becomes a necessity. Same for airbags.
Clothes are a necessity? Nuh uh, if you never leave your house you can be naked forever, get a WFH job and order groceries. You don’t need clothes to live. See? That’s your argument. It is patently ridiculous.
What doesn’t work with your comparison with fire extinguishers and seat belts is that there’s no drawbacks to them and there’s no alternative permanent solution (except public transit, but even there seatbelts wouldn’t be a bad thing to have). People also go without both for all their lives so we’re very far from food, love, water and so on.
Right now you’re arguing guns are a necessity like you were saying fire extinguishers are a necessity because of pyromaniacs or seatbelts are necessary because of people who commit suicide by car crash, two statistically insignificant events, so insignificant that if they were the only reason things caught on fire/people died in car crashes, neither fire extinguishers or seatbelts would exist. The way you interpret statistics I bet your retirement plan is to win the lottery!
It’s ok you lived a traumatic event that shaped your vision of the world, what your need isn’t a gun, it’s too see a psychologist, just like the world you live in, it doesn’t need more weapons, it needs more social support so people don’t want to own weapons.
And yes, clothings are worn by people all over the world even in climates where people could go naked at all times and are at the base of the pyramid of needs.
Unfortunately the definition I’m required to work within to suit your narrow brain is “will die without = need” you don’t NEED a seatbelt if you don’t get in a crash, you can’t move the goalposts NOW and say “well theres no drawbacks.” Drawbacks are NOT in your definition of necessity.
People ALSO go without love their whole lives. Your argument is falling apart at the seams, you can’t even keep up with it anymore lmao. You can’t even keep up with my argument either, and I’m not the one changing mine. We’re done here lmao.
Sorry if I use the actual definition of words and see the difference between what is needed to solve an issue vs what is done to circumvent it.
Good luck next time you get attacked, cross your fingers they don’t decide to just go for it because stats aren’t on your side (not that you understand them anyway).