Russia and the NRA

#301
#301
midnight orange said:
It's unlikely that your house will burn to the ground. But you still carry insurance because the consequences could be ruiness. It's just insurance that you hope you never need.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point and one reason why I have NEVER and will NEVER advocate for any law that would take away a person's right to own a gun for self defense.

The other part of your analogy would need to include this, 50% of all house fires are caused by the spontaneous combustion of insurance policies, thousands of insurance policies are "lost" or "stolen" every year and used to burn other people's property. Occasionally, a big and totally unnecessary insurance policy is used to burn down a school building full of innocent children. Finally, insurance policies are frequently used in domestic violence, murder/suicides, and just plain suicide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#302
#302
luthervol said:
That's an excellent point and one reason why I have NEVER and will NEVER advocate for any law that would take away a person's right to own a gun for self defense.

The other part of your analogy would need to include this, 50% of all house fires are caused by the spontaneous combustion of insurance policies, thousands of insurance policies are "lost" or "stolen" every year and used to burn other people's property. Occasionally, a big and totally unnecessary insurance policy is used to burn down a school building full of innocent children. Finally, insurance policies are frequently used in domestic violence, murder/suicides, and just plain suicide.
Click to expand...

50% of deaths are caused by guns? wtf is this nonsense? and its also less than .01% of "insurance policies" kill, does that change your equation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#303
#303
luthervol said:
That's an excellent point and one reason why I have NEVER and will NEVER advocate for any law that would take away a person's right to own a gun for self defense.

The other part of your analogy would need to include this, 50% of all house fires are caused by the spontaneous combustion of insurance policies, thousands of insurance policies are "lost" or "stolen" every year and used to burn other people's property. Occasionally, a big and totally unnecessary insurance policy is used to burn down a school building full of innocent children. Finally, insurance policies are frequently used in domestic violence, murder/suicides, and just plain suicide.
Click to expand...

You have a point you'd like to make? You're responding to a response that explained that guns and other preps are like insurance. Are you saying that food preps and such are use for such ignoble purposes? Or are you fear-mongering guns?

If you're just fear-mongering guns, make your point. Are you saying we shouldn't have such insurance?

Please be specific. What exactly are you arguing for?
 
#305
#305
Orange_Crush said:
You have a point you'd like to make? You're responding to a response that explained that guns and other preps are like insurance. Are you saying that food preps and such are use for such ignoble purposes? Or are you fear-mongering guns?

If you're just fear-mongering guns, make your point. Are you saying we shouldn't have such insurance?

Please be specific. What exactly are you arguing for?
Click to expand...

Nah, I'll take a pass on that one.

I've been specific, I've been general, I've been obtuse, I've been vague, I've been theoretical, the one thing I haven't been is convincing and that's not about to change.

Some of the gun nuts on here are still claiming that I want to take your right to own a gun away. That type of inability to understand and process what is said has become a dead end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#308
#308
luthervol said:
Nah, I'll take a pass on that one.

I've been specific, I've been general, I've been obtuse, I've been vague, I've been theoretical, the one thing I haven't been is convincing and that's not about to change.

Some of the gun nuts on here are still claiming that I want to take your right to own a gun away. That type of inability to understand and process what is said has become a dead end.
Click to expand...

That and the deplorable NRA is aiding Russia in that divisive narrative that you are trying to take their guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#310
#310
luthervol said:
Nah, I'll take a pass on that one.

I've been specific, I've been general, I've been obtuse, I've been vague, I've been theoretical, the one thing I haven't been is convincing and that's not about to change.

Some of the gun nuts on here are still claiming that I want to take your right to own a gun away. That type of inability to understand and process what is said has become a dead end.
Click to expand...

No I understand that RIGHT NOW you just want to take certain types of guns away.
 
#314
#314
luthervol said:
Nah, I'll take a pass on that one.

I've been specific, I've been general, I've been obtuse, I've been vague, I've been theoretical, the one thing I haven't been is convincing and that's not about to change.

Some of the gun nuts on here are still claiming that I want to take your right to own a gun away. That type of inability to understand and process what is said has become a dead end.
Click to expand...

Where you hit a dead end is your inability to understand who does and doesn't follow your new ideas on laws and bans, and who actually will (in this case a lot of people you define as gun nuts). Its not gonna make sense.
 
#315
#315
luthervol said:
Nah, I'll take a pass on that one.

I've been specific, I've been general, I've been obtuse, I've been vague, I've been theoretical, the one thing I haven't been is convincing and that's not about to change.

Some of the gun nuts on here are still claiming that I want to take your right to own a gun away. That type of inability to understand and process what is said has become a dead end.
Click to expand...

Someone said that guns and food stores, etc, are an insurance policy that we hope to never use. You went on a tangent about that/those insurance policies being used for nefarious purposes. Surely, you had a point. And surely, you're not too much of a coward to actually make the point.
 
#316
#316
luthervol said:
Proof of my post above.
Click to expand...

Just make the point that you were working toward. What about the nefarious uses of guns by and INCREDIBLY low % of bad actors has bearing on me having my insurance plans? What were you making that argument toward?
 
#317
#317
luthervol said:
I was viewing the conversation in a broader context; providing for the safety, security, and well being of your wife and kids... Always... It's not just a priority if/when things get to that metaphorical "everything's gone to ***t" point.

Sort of like the way my grandparents raised my parents, my parents raised me and my siblings, my wife's parents raised her, and I have raised my kids (2 of whom are pretty much on their own now). The time, energy, money, and emotion that was not expended on preparing for the apocalypse was directed into more tangible and beneficial areas.

Plus, if you're not hording penicillin and super antibiotics, you're not really prepared anyway.
Click to expand...
In true Armageddon, I'll shoot you and take yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#321
#321
Orange_Crush said:
Someone said that guns and food stores, etc, are an insurance policy that we hope to never use. You went on a tangent about that/those insurance policies being used for nefarious purposes. Surely, you had a point. And surely, you're not too much of a coward to actually make the point.
Click to expand...

I know I've used the playground analogy before but this is taking it a little to far. What's next? Are you going to double dog dare me?

You do the comparative analysis of a fire insurance policy for your house and a gun(s) as a safety and security insurance policy in case of some form of Armageddon. There are some real obvious comparisons and equally obvious contrasts.
 
#322
#322
luthervol said:
I know I've used the playground analogy before but this is taking it a little to far. What's next? Are you going to double dog dare me?

You do the comparative analysis of a fire insurance policy for your house and a gun(s) as a safety and security insurance policy in case of some form of Armageddon. There are some real obvious comparisons and equally obvious contrasts.
Click to expand...

What point were you making, loother? How should an incredibly low % of bad actors with guns affect my decision to arm myself as insurance against bad things happening?
 
#323
#323
luthervol said:
That's an excellent point and one reason why I have NEVER and will NEVER advocate for any law that would take away a person's right to own a gun for self defense.

The other part of your analogy would need to include this, 50% of all house fires are caused by the spontaneous combustion of insurance policies, thousands of insurance policies are "lost" or "stolen" every year and used to burn other people's property. Occasionally, a big and totally unnecessary insurance policy is used to burn down a school building full of innocent children. Finally, insurance policies are frequently used in domestic violence, murder/suicides, and just plain suicide.
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
You have a point you'd like to make? You're responding to a response that explained that guns and other preps are like insurance. Are you saying that food preps and such are use for such ignoble purposes? Or are you fear-mongering guns?

If you're just fear-mongering guns, make your point. Are you saying we shouldn't have such insurance?

Please be specific. What exactly are you arguing for?
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
What point were you making, loother? How should an incredibly low % of bad actors with guns affect my decision to arm myself as insurance against bad things happening?
Click to expand...

loother??? I'm bored and don't want to play anymore. And stop asking to copy my homework.

I hate to continually have to point out the obvious but....

I have never advocated for taking away your right to own your "insurance policy" gun.

I never said anything about your decision to arm yourself as insurance.

What I did say is that guns are not exactly like a home fire insurance policy. Some similarities, some differences.

To continue dumming it down....a home fire insurance policy will never, either intentionally or unintentionally, be used for anything other than its expressed purpose. (minor difference - one of several) And that's the only one of my answers that I'm going to give you. Think!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#324
#324
luthervol said:
loother??? I'm bored and don't want to play anymore. And stop asking to copy my homework.

I hate to continually have to point out the obvious but....

I have never advocated for taking away your right to own your "insurance policy" gun.

I never said anything about your decision to arm yourself as insurance.

What I did say is that guns are not exactly like a home fire insurance policy. Some similarities, some differences.

To continue dumming it down....a home fire insurance policy will never, either intentionally or unintentionally, be used for anything other than its expressed purpose. (minor difference - one of several) And that's the only one of my answers that I'm going to give you. Think!
Click to expand...

Obviously your appetite for risk is very low. Again, do whatever you want. Stop worrying about what other people’s risk levels are.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top