I don't know. On one hand, people have a right to protect their property, on the other hand, you can seriously hurt someone like this and most of the time it's literal children doing shit like this.
People in this country don't seem very mentally stable. It's like that clerk that shot a teenager over a few cans of beer.
Like, it's a few cans of beer, don't literally kill someone over like 4 bucks.
Gotta burn your hand on the hot stove at least once to know to never do it again. You can't just tell some people that they can't do something, you have to let them find out why they shouldn't.
This i can understand cause replacing a mailbox every month would get old real quick. But yea dont dome someone unless its a armed robbery or something like that
You absolute retard, don't you understand, these are non-violent offenders. They trespass on your property and steal your shit, maybe break in when they feel like, but they haven't raped you or your daughter yet. This what all kids do! Weren't you a criminal as a kid? I was, so everyone else must have been. It's a right of passage!
You just huddle there by yourself and hope it's the good kids vandalizing your property. And don't you ever fucking dare call 911 because that is snitching and it puts black bodies in danger, even if you can see it's obviously white trash kids doing it.
I go to work on time, I notice when people get haircuts and I say something nice. But now I want to soak a mop with this kid’s brains and that’s not ok?
The value of the stolen items are irrelevant. Otherwise you are arguing that it's OK to kill someone if they steal something worth more than a certain amount.
No one is advocating for capital punishment for petty crimes either so that's a strawman.
It's just a fact that if you choose to steal or rob you put yourself in a position where a confrontation with police or store owners might occur where they have a right to defend themselves or their property.
You think thugs who get caught in the act of stealing are usually remorseful and easy going or quick to resort to violence?
If a store owner catches a thief he is within his right to recover and hold the person until police arrive, and if he is attacked allowed to defend himself.
That's why I said the confrontation can lead to violence. 100% the fault of the person stealing.
And look that persons going to jail either way. NAPcels lose again as always.
If a store owner catches a thief he is within his right to recover and hold the person until police arrive.
Yeah you can, but thats usually a retarded thing to do and this is why Americans are retarded. Instead of letting police/insurance take care (as is the case in all the low crime countries) they would rather risk themselves getting murdered and law suit over merchandise. Why do you think most stores ill punish employees who try to catch shoplifters anyways?
Yes but he was making a dentological argument, so what happened in a specific case is irrelevant.
I'm Swedish so you can quit making those quips btw.
What happens in "low crime countries" like Eurotopia is that the criminal gets away and the store owner takes the hit or if it's something like arsony or grand theft auto, the insurance (aka everyone) takes the hit. You might think that kind of teleological way of structuring a society is good but that's your personal opinion but in most countries someone who is getting robbed has a right to defend himself.
If a robber or thief gets injured because he chose to commit that crime, it's HIS fault, not the victims'. Of course you can not be allowed to shoot an unarmed kid in the back for stealing a cookie but that's a dishonest strawman.
The value of the stolen items are irrelevant. Otherwise you are arguing that it's OK to kill someone if they steal something worth more than a certain amount.
What are you talking about? The kid I talked about stole a few cans of beer and ran and was shot and left to die:
The value of the item is irrelevant to the discussion. 1 cent to 1 trillion. It makes no difference if you're making a deontological argument, I would have thought a decade of reddit debates would have made you realize this.
No one is arguing for the death penalty for theft but I hope you realize that isn't even the argument.
The robber/thief created a hostile situation by breaking the law and if you put victims or police in danger by say, resisting arrest or trying to attack the shop owner/police you must realize death or serious injury is a likely outcome. This does not mean that you deserve to die if you steal 4 dollars worth of beer, but that you took a risk that led to that outcome.
The entire world view that these laws are based upon is that personal freedom and right to defend oneself is of outmost importance, that a person should not have to forfeit his own rights because someone else infringes on them.
You have a right to defend yourself and your property.
If you don't like America, just move to Venezuela or some shit dude.
The value of the item is irrelevant to the discussion.
Stopped reading. No it isn't. If you shoot someone over a few dollars of beer, you are a moron and a scumbag. I'm not even going to entertain anymore of your drivel.
You are well known here for being low IQ and pushing rightoid bullshit that doesn't stand up to even 5 seconds of scrutiny. You people constantly attempting to defend any and all lethal or unethical actions are uneducated and stains on society.
Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
Which makes sense, because well over 90% of rape, the offender is a family member or friend simply taking advantage and not the TV trope brand of rape.
If you find yourself citing a study that looked at 300 cases of homicide that was ruled justified self-defense in some year as encompassing the entirety of defensive usage of guns in that year, you should ask google to ban you, clearly your interaction with the internet is a net negative for the humankind. Alternatively apply as a volunteer to politifact, hopefully that would accelerate their demise.
If you find yourself agreeing with an attack fake ad you should consider applying as are drama mod.
The point was that "X doesn't deserve Y penalty, therefore doing Y to prevent X is immoral" is retarded.
If you find yourself citing a study that looked at 300 cases of homicide that was ruled justified self-defense in some year as encompassing the entirety of defensive usage of guns in that year, you should ask google to ban you, clearly your interaction with the internet is a net negative for the humanity. Alternatively apply as a volunteer to politifact, hopefully that would accelerate their demise.
There's more data cited there. It's a collection of research looking at fake news in relation to defensive gun use which is commonly invoked by conservatives.
If you find yourself agreeing with an attack fake ad you should consider applying as are drama mod.
A) I know it's fake.
B) It's a strawman argument made by conservatives. I'm simply pointing out the premise of their argument is incoherent.
The point was that "X doesn't deserve Y penalty, therefore doing Y to prevent X is immoral" is retarded.
If you are physically assaulting someone as in you're raping them, lethal force is justified so you picked a bad example. Hitting a mailbox is a petty crime.
When someone tried to swindle me with one citation, I have zero interest in sifting through the remainder hoping to find non-fake research there. It's not "OK, the first claim was a lie, but how do you know the rest is lies too", it's that I identified a liar.
If you are physically assaulting someone as in you're raping them, lethal force is justified so you picked a bad example. Hitting a mailbox is a petty crime.
Right, so the perpetrator gets a petty injury, hopefully.
The best part of this comment is you linked a "study" that mine was refuting because you didn't read anything I linked.
Basically, people lie, and they lie a lot. If you were to believe that number then you would expect to see way more people in the ER:
Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.
1
Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”
There's another paper I'll go find if you want that goes more in detail. This is what I'm talking about when I say "fake news." It's not even that I'm against guns, it's that you people repeatedly lie and make absurd claims.
Use your fucking brain dude. If there were 2 million defensive gun uses a year (obviously not all 2 million would involve actual shooting, but still, hundreds of thousands of shootings) then you would see it within the ER data and statistics.
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
According to the BJS only about 0.9% of these involved actual defensive gun use.
Self-defense gun use (SDGU) occurs in fewer than 1% of contact crimes.
SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.
To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.
Hahahha FAIL....
The defensive gun use accounts to brandishing a gun, including "I have a gun", not just shooting at a criminal.
lmao "there no evidence falling from a third floor is dangerous" this is how stupid this sounds. Which is also why gun owners don't pay attention to this fraudulent studies.
In other news there's no evidence guns can defend any property at all, there's no evidence police can stop a crime, there's no evidence society should do anything about crime at all because we found benefit in any law enforcement actions in the reduction of crimes...
An isolated unarmed woman can be overpowered and raped at will, an armed one is gonna send the perpetrator straight to hell, period, that's reality and if a study cannot reflect the study's data is trash and should be discarded. Can you rape a policewoman just as easily as an unarmed citizen? If the answer is yes then think about how utterly ridiculous that sounds.
lmao "there no evidence falling from a third floor is dangerous" this is how stupid this sounds. Which is also why gun owners don't pay attention to this fraudulent studies.
That's a funny way of saying "I'm denying BJS data because it conflicts with my narrative."
Have you ever considered that maybe you just don't know what your talking about and your understanding of these things is not based on anything other than your feelings?
This is not a response to the BJS data. Nice try though. Do you have any valid counterpoints to the presented data?
This world where you people think your fevered delusions and scientifically illiterate opinions are on equal footing with actual data isn't gonna be accepted here.
Again, its like a study coming out saying that a policewoman on duty is just as likely to be raped as a civilian.
You know in the vast majority of rape cases when the victim is female the offender is a friend or family member, correct? The fact you're so low IQ you think most rape is the TV trope version where someone grabs you on the street doesn't make me think you have a very firm understanding of any of this.
Do you have any valid counterpoints to the presented data?
The data itself is where the fraud comes from, that's what protects it from quick debunking, I would have to get the money to try to replicate this study.
You know in the vast majority of rape cases when the victim is female the offender is a friend or family member, correct?
This is irrelevant and misleading, we all know females may buy a gun to protect from random public encounters against predators, nobody claims a gun will protect you against your family member groping you in a position of power or other abuses of power in the workplace
A third of all rape cases are actually cloe to the "TV trope" of some random shithead, abusing his male power against a female, 1/10 cases is the literal sterotype of the stree rapists using a weapon to submit his victim. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence
People in this country don't seem very mentally stable.
You, by your own admission, have any number of mental illnesses. You don't need to project that onto the rest of us who live perfectly normal lives, with our thin veils of heterosexuality and our regular /r/drama posting.
I seem to recall an angsty post about your long-term struggle with depression. Then there's also the very clear and manifest personality disorders. But don't worry buddy, you're among peers here.
I don't have "depression" lol. And even if I did, that's not a mental illness. Some 50% of the country is "depressed." There are forms of depression related to mental illness, but not all depression is.
You have literally made shit up in relation to what I've posted multiple times.
You also confuse blatant larps for real posts. And this again, isn't a response to what I said:
And even if I did, that's not a mental illness. Some 50% of the country is "depressed." There are forms of depression related to mental illness, but not all depression is.
Between that and literally deleting your accounts, I'm starting to see now why you boast in every thread that nobody can prove anything you've said in the past wrong. That's a pretty sweet gig.
And this again, isn't a response to what I said:
The problem pizza is you're confusing my blatant larps for real posts.
You lean out the side of a car with a baseball bat. My uncle had a variant where you sit in the bed of a pickup and use big rocks, that way you wont break your wrist if a homeowner gets clever like this
I'd handle it either by trying to get the plates of the people smashing my mailbox, getting a mailbox that will fall over without breaking, or just letting them smash the damn thing.
Oh so now you’d call the cops? I thought all of them were bastards.
120 comments
1 AutoModerator 2019-11-24
do not comment or vote in linked threads
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4 RBLXTalk 2019-11-24
LOL, he wrote out an entire 20 paragraph essay on Reddit circlejerking and got made fun of in the comments
2 chimpan_z 2019-11-24
Based
2 Stenwalden 2019-11-24
Just a poor drama farmer doing his job...
Look how they treating my boy 😢😢😢
1 SnapshillBot 2019-11-24
Are you black or something? Why do you think fathers don't exist?
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
I don't know. On one hand, people have a right to protect their property, on the other hand, you can seriously hurt someone like this and most of the time it's literal children doing shit like this.
People in this country don't seem very mentally stable. It's like that clerk that shot a teenager over a few cans of beer.
Like, it's a few cans of beer, don't literally kill someone over like 4 bucks.
2 200iqBigBrain 2019-11-24
That's the point.
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Yes, and trying to maim children over a mailbox is dumb. I'm going to say something here American tards would do well to learn:
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. It's not ethical just because you can do it.
2 200iqBigBrain 2019-11-24
This also applies to smashing property
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Yes, it does. They shouldn't be doing it, but they're also dumb children.
2 200iqBigBrain 2019-11-24
And sometimes people suffer the consequences of bad decisions
1 -Subdivisions- 2019-11-24
Gotta burn your hand on the hot stove at least once to know to never do it again. You can't just tell some people that they can't do something, you have to let them find out why they shouldn't.
1 NathansFamousDogpill 2019-11-24
This i can understand cause replacing a mailbox every month would get old real quick. But yea dont dome someone unless its a armed robbery or something like that
1 totally_not_ac3 2019-11-24
Anyone who breaks into my house while I am present will get domed with no warning
1 CitrusDelicious 2019-11-24
This is a warning to any strange men who enter my house while my wife is away (I keep the door unlocked): be prepared to get serious dome
1 Burnnoticelover 2019-11-24
That means something different where I’m from.
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-11-24
Steal something and you get shot. I don’t see where the confusion here is.
1 Redactor0 2019-11-24
You absolute retard, don't you understand, these are non-violent offenders. They trespass on your property and steal your shit, maybe break in when they feel like, but they haven't raped you or your daughter yet. This what all kids do! Weren't you a criminal as a kid? I was, so everyone else must have been. It's a right of passage!
You just huddle there by yourself and hope it's the good kids vandalizing your property. And don't you ever fucking dare call 911 because that is snitching and it puts black bodies in danger, even if you can see it's obviously white trash kids doing it.
1 AlexJones_GayFrog 2019-11-24
You joke but I've seriously seen people with this opinion.
Nobody should carry guns for self defense because that puts people like me and my friends at risk of being shot when we get drunk and belligerent.
1 911roofer 2019-11-24
Islam is right about alcohol.
1 dramasexual 2019-11-24
It took me way longer than it should have to realize this was ironic. These people are extremely difficult to parody.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-11-24
pizza basically argued the same thing above but non ironically
1 NumerousEvent 2019-11-24
Based and Colten Boushie-pilled.
1 -Subdivisions- 2019-11-24
I'm mad at myself because I took you seriously for a second and had a moment of S E E T H
1 Brahmasexual 2019-11-24
I go to work on time, I notice when people get haircuts and I say something nice. But now I want to soak a mop with this kid’s brains and that’s not ok?
1 totally_not_ac3 2019-11-24
This is your worst take.
2 dramasexual 2019-11-24
idk this nigga has a lotta really fucktarded takes
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Yeah, not murdering people over 4 dollars and not wanting to seriously harm dumb kids is a bad take for sure.
1 snowkarl 2019-11-24
The value of the stolen items are irrelevant. Otherwise you are arguing that it's OK to kill someone if they steal something worth more than a certain amount.
No one is advocating for capital punishment for petty crimes either so that's a strawman.
It's just a fact that if you choose to steal or rob you put yourself in a position where a confrontation with police or store owners might occur where they have a right to defend themselves or their property.
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2019-11-24
Lmao
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
2 snowkarl 2019-11-24
Where was fleeing mentioned pal?
You think thugs who get caught in the act of stealing are usually remorseful and easy going or quick to resort to violence?
If a store owner catches a thief he is within his right to recover and hold the person until police arrive, and if he is attacked allowed to defend himself.
That's why I said the confrontation can lead to violence. 100% the fault of the person stealing.
Actions have consequences :)
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2019-11-24
You didn't but thats what happened in the case Pizza mentioned, and you included their property in that case as well.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/tennessee-store-clerk-found-guilty-gunning-down-teen-over-allegedly-n1043406
And look that persons going to jail either way. NAPcels lose again as always.
Yeah you can, but thats usually a retarded thing to do and this is why Americans are retarded. Instead of letting police/insurance take care (as is the case in all the low crime countries) they would rather risk themselves getting murdered and law suit over merchandise. Why do you think most stores ill punish employees who try to catch shoplifters anyways?
2 snowkarl 2019-11-24
Yes but he was making a dentological argument, so what happened in a specific case is irrelevant.
I'm Swedish so you can quit making those quips btw.
What happens in "low crime countries" like Eurotopia is that the criminal gets away and the store owner takes the hit or if it's something like arsony or grand theft auto, the insurance (aka everyone) takes the hit. You might think that kind of teleological way of structuring a society is good but that's your personal opinion but in most countries someone who is getting robbed has a right to defend himself.
If a robber or thief gets injured because he chose to commit that crime, it's HIS fault, not the victims'. Of course you can not be allowed to shoot an unarmed kid in the back for stealing a cookie but that's a dishonest strawman.
-1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2019-11-24
I will take your word on how it is in Sweden if you can take my word on how burgers like to escalate stuff.
And it’s not exactly a straw man if it’s easy to find examples.
3 Kat_B0T 2019-11-24
Imagine backing up a retarded ps take. Just take the L my dood
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2019-11-24
Getting downvoted on /r/drama is proof of intelligence.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-11-24
This is the cope I come here for
Ftr I upvote all lolcows, including ps
1 Brahmasexual 2019-11-24
The insurance taking the hit and the thief taking a bullet are essentially the same outcome for society at large.
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-11-24
Police can't do shit most of the time. They're only purpose is to make sure your claims aren't fraudulent.
1 911roofer 2019-11-24
And nothing of value was lost.
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
What are you talking about? The kid I talked about stole a few cans of beer and ran and was shot and left to die:
There are other examples of shit like this happening too.
Weird, because every time someone is shot over a petty crime someone like you shows up to defend it.
I've seen American conservatives defend execution-style murders.
Cops shooting people in the back 8 times.
People getting shot for minor conflicts.
It's insane, they will justify any and all use of lethal force if they think some law was broken.
4 snowkarl 2019-11-24
The value of the item is irrelevant to the discussion. 1 cent to 1 trillion. It makes no difference if you're making a deontological argument, I would have thought a decade of reddit debates would have made you realize this.
No one is arguing for the death penalty for theft but I hope you realize that isn't even the argument.
The robber/thief created a hostile situation by breaking the law and if you put victims or police in danger by say, resisting arrest or trying to attack the shop owner/police you must realize death or serious injury is a likely outcome. This does not mean that you deserve to die if you steal 4 dollars worth of beer, but that you took a risk that led to that outcome.
The entire world view that these laws are based upon is that personal freedom and right to defend oneself is of outmost importance, that a person should not have to forfeit his own rights because someone else infringes on them.
You have a right to defend yourself and your property.
If you don't like America, just move to Venezuela or some shit dude.
0 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Stopped reading. No it isn't. If you shoot someone over a few dollars of beer, you are a moron and a scumbag. I'm not even going to entertain anymore of your drivel.
You are well known here for being low IQ and pushing rightoid bullshit that doesn't stand up to even 5 seconds of scrutiny. You people constantly attempting to defend any and all lethal or unethical actions are uneducated and stains on society.
3 snowkarl 2019-11-24
L o L
Would it, as logical consequence of your argument, be fine to shoot someone over a million in that case?
Because you're not arguing against shooting people for theft, you're simply haggling over the acceptable amount.
0 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Depends. Shooting someone over a million dollars at least has more valid reasoning behind it than fucking 4 dollars.
1 snowkarl 2019-11-24
Hopefully you're aware that your argument is really bad at least
1 Brahmasexual 2019-11-24
What if it’s all the beer in the world? Can I definitely kill them then? I don’t feel comfortable leaving it up to a jury’s interpretation.
1 Brahmasexual 2019-11-24
You’re right that the kid did not deserve to be punished, and neither does the man who killed him. All are blameless.
1 Lord_Sticky 2019-11-24
You could just not break mailboxes though and then you don’t have to worry
1 zergling_Lester 2019-11-24
http://i.imgur.com/70ixb.jpg
1 911roofer 2019-11-24
I hope that's real.
1 zergling_Lester 2019-11-24
Of course it isn't, it pits two sacred cows against each other, in a way that your average liberal is entirely unprepared to untangle 😏
2 self_safety_advocate 2019-11-24
🤔
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
There's quite literally no evidence that gun ownership reduces rape or women with guns suffer less injury when sexually assaulted:
Which makes sense, because well over 90% of rape, the offender is a family member or friend simply taking advantage and not the TV trope brand of rape.
2 zergling_Lester 2019-11-24
If you find yourself citing a study that looked at 300 cases of homicide that was ruled justified self-defense in some year as encompassing the entirety of defensive usage of guns in that year, you should ask google to ban you, clearly your interaction with the internet is a net negative for the humankind. Alternatively apply as a volunteer to politifact, hopefully that would accelerate their demise.
If you find yourself agreeing with an attack fake ad you should consider applying as are drama mod.
The point was that "X doesn't deserve Y penalty, therefore doing Y to prevent X is immoral" is retarded.
2 Imgur_Lurker 2019-11-24
lmao
The funniest parts of these Spergouts is Pizzasihll has so few friends he's never met a women who's had to use a gun preventality
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
There's more data cited there. It's a collection of research looking at fake news in relation to defensive gun use which is commonly invoked by conservatives.
A) I know it's fake.
B) It's a strawman argument made by conservatives. I'm simply pointing out the premise of their argument is incoherent.
If you are physically assaulting someone as in you're raping them, lethal force is justified so you picked a bad example. Hitting a mailbox is a petty crime.
Raping someone is not.
2 zergling_Lester 2019-11-24
When someone tried to swindle me with one citation, I have zero interest in sifting through the remainder hoping to find non-fake research there. It's not "OK, the first claim was a lie, but how do you know the rest is lies too", it's that I identified a liar.
Btw, I think I accidentally found the study that claimed that there are 2,000,000 gun defense incidents per year, feel free to refute it: https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed%20Resistance%20to%20Crime-%20The%20Prevalence%20and%20Nature%20of%20Self-Defe.pdf
Right, so the perpetrator gets a petty injury, hopefully.
0 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
The best part of this comment is you linked a "study" that mine was refuting because you didn't read anything I linked.
Basically, people lie, and they lie a lot. If you were to believe that number then you would expect to see way more people in the ER:
1
There's another paper I'll go find if you want that goes more in detail. This is what I'm talking about when I say "fake news." It's not even that I'm against guns, it's that you people repeatedly lie and make absurd claims.
4 zergling_Lester 2019-11-24
The truth is in the middle between 2 millions and 300, of course.
2 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
What is a sample size?
The number you're pushing is literally a survey.
The number Harvard looked at was actual confirmed sexual assaults in which defensive counter measures were taken.
3 zergling_Lester 2019-11-24
I'm not "pushing a number", I'm refusing to believe any paper David Hemenway was an author or a coauthor of after seeing the bullshit you quoted.
I have to commend you for gracefully if quietly accepting defeat on the mailbox issue though, this is a progress!
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Use your fucking brain dude. If there were 2 million defensive gun uses a year (obviously not all 2 million would involve actual shooting, but still, hundreds of thousands of shootings) then you would see it within the ER data and statistics.
Seriously:
According to the BJS only about 0.9% of these involved actual defensive gun use.
3 zergling_Lester 2019-11-24
The 2 million number is obviously insane.
I'm not sure what the rest is about.
2 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
You asked me to refute it.
1 zergling_Lester 2019-11-24
Ah, good job 🤗🤗🤗
3 LongPostBot 2019-11-24
look im gunna have 2 ask u 2 keep ur giant dumps in the toilet not in my replys 😷😷😷
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Renacidos 2019-11-24
Hahahha FAIL....
The defensive gun use accounts to brandishing a gun, including "I have a gun", not just shooting at a criminal.
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Are you illiterate?
1 Brahmasexual 2019-11-24
You don’t see those criminals in the healthcare system because they just changed out of their shitty drawers and went to go mug someone else.
1 Renacidos 2019-11-24
lmao "there no evidence falling from a third floor is dangerous" this is how stupid this sounds. Which is also why gun owners don't pay attention to this fraudulent studies.
In other news there's no evidence guns can defend any property at all, there's no evidence police can stop a crime, there's no evidence society should do anything about crime at all because we found benefit in any law enforcement actions in the reduction of crimes...
An isolated unarmed woman can be overpowered and raped at will, an armed one is gonna send the perpetrator straight to hell, period, that's reality and if a study cannot reflect the study's data is trash and should be discarded. Can you rape a policewoman just as easily as an unarmed citizen? If the answer is yes then think about how utterly ridiculous that sounds.
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
That's a funny way of saying "I'm denying BJS data because it conflicts with my narrative."
Have you ever considered that maybe you just don't know what your talking about and your understanding of these things is not based on anything other than your feelings?
1 Renacidos 2019-11-24
It's so fucking stupid Im absolutely justified in saying the study is fraud, which wouldnt be surprising since half of all studies are fraud or use bad data: https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
Again, its like a study coming out saying that a policewoman on duty is just as likely to be raped as a civilian.
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
This is not a response to the BJS data. Nice try though. Do you have any valid counterpoints to the presented data?
This world where you people think your fevered delusions and scientifically illiterate opinions are on equal footing with actual data isn't gonna be accepted here.
You know in the vast majority of rape cases when the victim is female the offender is a friend or family member, correct? The fact you're so low IQ you think most rape is the TV trope version where someone grabs you on the street doesn't make me think you have a very firm understanding of any of this.
1 Brahmasexual 2019-11-24
A collection of anecdotes doesn’t qualify as data to anyone who made it through statistics.
1 Renacidos 2019-11-24
The data itself is where the fraud comes from, that's what protects it from quick debunking, I would have to get the money to try to replicate this study.
This is irrelevant and misleading, we all know females may buy a gun to protect from random public encounters against predators, nobody claims a gun will protect you against your family member groping you in a position of power or other abuses of power in the workplace
A third of all rape cases are actually cloe to the "TV trope" of some random shithead, abusing his male power against a female, 1/10 cases is the literal sterotype of the stree rapists using a weapon to submit his victim. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence
1 Brahmasexual 2019-11-24
The absolute height of arrogance for you to claim this when, just today, I saw a Gif of a woman avoiding attack by shooting a man.
1 iamredpill 2019-11-24
Hey, there’s this guy I know who has a house full of guns. You should break into his house and tell him to do better.
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-11-24
pizza couldnt break in to a burger king nugget 10 pack let alone someones house
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-11-24
stick to dabbing on foids, your takes on mailbox vandalism suck
1 aqouta 2019-11-24
Bike cuck take.
1 IHeartCommyMommy 2019-11-24
Oh thank God.
You said a few things that weren't retarded in the last week or two, I'm glad you're finally back to normal.
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
You heard it here first: Maiming children is good.
2 IHeartCommyMommy 2019-11-24
This but unironically
1 911roofer 2019-11-24
Beer thieves deserve worse.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-11-24
You, by your own admission, have any number of mental illnesses. You don't need to project that onto the rest of us who live perfectly normal lives, with our thin veils of heterosexuality and our regular /r/drama posting.
0 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Whem, at any point, have I ever said this?
3 jaredschaffer27 2019-11-24
I seem to recall an angsty post about your long-term struggle with depression. Then there's also the very clear and manifest personality disorders. But don't worry buddy, you're among peers here.
1 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
Where is it?
3 jaredschaffer27 2019-11-24
So you're denying that you've ever posted about having depression?
0 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
I don't have "depression" lol. And even if I did, that's not a mental illness. Some 50% of the country is "depressed." There are forms of depression related to mental illness, but not all depression is.
3 jaredschaffer27 2019-11-24
I will leave it to the hands of the retards here to decide if that's a true recounting of what you've posted in the past.
0 professorshillphd 2019-11-24
You have literally made shit up in relation to what I've posted multiple times.
You also confuse blatant larps for real posts. And this again, isn't a response to what I said:
3 jaredschaffer27 2019-11-24
Between that and literally deleting your accounts, I'm starting to see now why you boast in every thread that nobody can prove anything you've said in the past wrong. That's a pretty sweet gig.
The problem pizza is you're confusing my blatant larps for real posts.
1 Stenwalden 2019-11-24
Actually, I wonder if the same laws that tell you not to fill your front yard with land mines and other traps is in effect here.
1 gunowner63 2019-11-24
Violate the NAP, get clapped.
1 CitrusDelicious 2019-11-24
Who are these black belt kids that are judo chopping mailboxes with enough strength to break their own arms?
Is this man's mailbox being regularly vandalized by a gang of delinquent progeria victims?
1 NathansFamousDogpill 2019-11-24
You lean out the side of a car with a baseball bat. My uncle had a variant where you sit in the bed of a pickup and use big rocks, that way you wont break your wrist if a homeowner gets clever like this
1 voice_of_ukraine 2019-11-24
god bless america
1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-11-24
we did the same but with a car door and we would hit fags at the "gay bar" walking along the sidewalk/crosswalk
(author note: actual gay bars were illegal so it was a closet gay bar hence the quotes)
the cops didnt care because fags were consodered subhuman back then, plus we were on the football team. the 60s were a hell of a time
2 CMDR-FusionCor3 2019-11-24
k then
if you're going to try to entertain us, at least make it slightly believable.
3 TheRootinTootinPutin 2019-11-24
Least believable part is an Iowan having friends
1 56vgg 2019-11-24
Fag bashing did indeed happen back in the day long time ago irrelevant to now
-1 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-11-24
imagine being so detached from the reality of the 60s and 70s in midwest USA the story seems unbelievable
5 CMDR-FusionCor3 2019-11-24
imagine thinking anyone over 60 uses drama
2 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-11-24
dozens of us
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-11-24
No.
2 Platycel 2019-11-24
Yes
1 r4chan-cancer 2019-11-24
They should be banned like teenagers, they’re just as stupid with all that lead poisoning back then
1 911roofer 2019-11-24
r/that_happened. Homosexuals are rich and powerful. They'd track you down and rape you.
1 dramasexual 2019-11-24
He hopes so
0 BernieMadeoffSanders 2019-11-24
lol fags being important? thats rich
2 LiberalKiwi 2019-11-24
OK Boomer
1 911roofer 2019-11-24
You'll soon be culturally enriched.
1 many_such_cases 2019-11-24
Does nobody care that the Postmaster General is going to be fucking livid? You don't tamper with his boxes.
1 Stenwalden 2019-11-24
One morning, you gonna find your mailbox booby trapped with hand grenades.
1 Burnnoticelover 2019-11-24
Oh so now you’d call the cops? I thought all of them were bastards.
1 -Subdivisions- 2019-11-24
What a fucking pussy imagine being ok with your property being destroyed
1 mehtastical 2019-11-24
that's a felony offense