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).
The odds of getting attacked are so low that you’re just being paranoid if you think guns are a necessity and that goes back to what I said, just like your attacker, what you need is help, not a weapon but you choose to want a weapon instead because it’s easier to deal with the trauma this way than to reflect on yourself and the society you live in and choose to encourage by arming yourself.
Also, good luck with your tueller drill, I hope you always keep people at least 20 feet from you (which is a very long distance to pull out a knife on someone!)
MythBusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 ft (6.1 m), the gun-wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot.[5]
When someone is actively attempting to stab you, you’re past the point of “help,” you’re at “fight,” “flight,” or “freeze.” Freeze gets you stabbed, flight ain’t bad if you’re fast and fight is not a good idea unless you have the ability and tools to do so. If he’s faster, fight becomes your only option (besides the fact that this is all instinct and you don’t actually choose what happens you just react, but never being in that situation I’m not surprised you have a fundimental misunderstanding about how it works,) and if you have to fight him you need a weapon of your own.
Sure, I’m paranoid because the fire death rate is only 13.0 deaths per million people but I still have a fire extinguisher. Fine, if preperation is synonymous with paranoia then I’ll at least be paranoid while putting out a fire so my cats don’t die. Your words don’t hurt me lol, knives do. You’re delusional as fuck and you cherry pick definitions, your words mean nothing
Also, good luck with your tueller drill, I hope you always keep people at least 20 feet from you (which is a very long distance to pull out a knife on someone!)
Wow you’re still misunderstanding the point of the drill even after I explicitly laid it out in terms a 5yo in ESL classes could understand? Try again dingus.
thought you said we were done here? 🤔
I am I just couldn’t resist the urge to point out how absolutely fucking stupid you are one last time.
I mean, you’re pretty stupid to believe you can defend yourself with a gun against someone with a knife just because of something you read and that’s been proven false as long as the person is less than 20 fucking feet from you! Your gun is useless in this situation even if you try to apply your little drill so goodluck to you buddy!
Lol no offense but I’m going to trust EVERY FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR EVER instead of you on this one. Literally look it up, call any firearms instructor you want and ask them to explain the Tueller principle to you. They all will say “move off the X,” the Tueller principle applies IF AND ONLY IF you STAND ENTIRELY STILL, if YOU ALSO MOVE, PREFERABLY LATERALLY it changes the outcome. I’ve literally been trained in it my dude, we ran drills, your refusal to accept that you’re wrong doesn’t invalidate literal ex special forces instructors currently working in the private sector. “Proven false” my whole ass nutsack. Face it, you’re a fucking idiot who speaks from inexperience, and who has the reading comprehension of a fucking prawn.
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).
Already explained both the Tueller principle you misquoted and the fact that 100,000>12,000. The stats actually are on my side.
The odds of getting attacked are so low that you’re just being paranoid if you think guns are a necessity and that goes back to what I said, just like your attacker, what you need is help, not a weapon but you choose to want a weapon instead because it’s easier to deal with the trauma this way than to reflect on yourself and the society you live in and choose to encourage by arming yourself.
Also, good luck with your tueller drill, I hope you always keep people at least 20 feet from you (which is a very long distance to pull out a knife on someone!)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
MythBusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 ft (6.1 m), the gun-wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot.[5]When someone is actively attempting to stab you, you’re past the point of “help,” you’re at “fight,” “flight,” or “freeze.” Freeze gets you stabbed, flight ain’t bad if you’re fast and fight is not a good idea unless you have the ability and tools to do so. If he’s faster, fight becomes your only option (besides the fact that this is all instinct and you don’t actually choose what happens you just react, but never being in that situation I’m not surprised you have a fundimental misunderstanding about how it works,) and if you have to fight him you need a weapon of your own.
Sure, I’m paranoid because the fire death rate is only 13.0 deaths per million people but I still have a fire extinguisher. Fine, if preperation is synonymous with paranoia then I’ll at least be paranoid while putting out a fire so my cats don’t die. Your words don’t hurt me lol, knives do. You’re delusional as fuck and you cherry pick definitions, your words mean nothing
Wow you’re still misunderstanding the point of the drill even after I explicitly laid it out in terms a 5yo in ESL classes could understand? Try again dingus.
I am I just couldn’t resist the urge to point out how absolutely fucking stupid you are one last time.
I mean, you’re pretty stupid to believe you can defend yourself with a gun against someone with a knife just because of something you read and that’s been proven false as long as the person is less than 20 fucking feet from you! Your gun is useless in this situation even if you try to apply your little drill so goodluck to you buddy!
Lol no offense but I’m going to trust EVERY FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR EVER instead of you on this one. Literally look it up, call any firearms instructor you want and ask them to explain the Tueller principle to you. They all will say “move off the X,” the Tueller principle applies IF AND ONLY IF you STAND ENTIRELY STILL, if YOU ALSO MOVE, PREFERABLY LATERALLY it changes the outcome. I’ve literally been trained in it my dude, we ran drills, your refusal to accept that you’re wrong doesn’t invalidate literal ex special forces instructors currently working in the private sector. “Proven false” my whole ass nutsack. Face it, you’re a fucking idiot who speaks from inexperience, and who has the reading comprehension of a fucking prawn.
Drill vs reality, you’re stupid if you think you’ve got any chance with the element of surprise.