- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
YES! THANK YOU!!!!
I did promise to respond to the sources Nom provided. I will do so. But this is so much more information to devour. On what little honor is afforded to me as someone who frequents this cesspool of a website, I will read and respond to all of this. However, it will take more time. Again, I thank you.
No mention of the CDC. Why do I find your ignorance of what is inconvenient unsurprising. How about I start up another debate, ask whether people find the Center for Disease Control a more reliable source or a lobbying group such as the VPC?
What I do find surprising is this: This is not a "contradicory (sic) study" you deranged bastard:-
John Lott, an economist and guns rights advocate, argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns
Do you even fucking hear yourself? Read it again. Tell me what's wrong with this goddamn picture.
Do you see it?
This is not a "contradicory (sic) study" you deranged bastard:- yeah, it's just a reference to a study that concluded little snippets of information such as "media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories", or "[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police" or ""98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." You know, things that are completely contradictory to your narrative. Which means, as per your SOP, you skipped reading them on Wikipedia, because you're an ignorant fuck, and probably skipped reading them here.
"Monodirectional explosive" also happens to be a objective description of what a bullet fucking is. Little to no different than a directional IED, which you have insisted on record is what would be used by perpetrators of a mass casualty attack, despite your claims that you never said such a thing. These are objective facts, despite your intentional refusal to understand the words "monodirectional" or "explosive", simply because you are too immature to admit when you can't reason your way out of a logical corner.
You have defeated yourself. To insist otherwise is to either deny your own word, the link to which is provided, or to deny the English lexicon. What the fuck, that level of denial from you is only a short step at this point.
Amazing how anything that would shatter your ego and worldview can be immediately dismissed out of hand as "retarded" before it does too much damage and forces you to actually consider that you might be wrong. Wish I could do that with inconvenient information. Oh wait, no I don't, that would be fucking stupid.
The wikipedia article literally cites a contradicory study in the next section. You don't even need to scroll down. But reading that would be too inconvenient, wouldn't it?
The VPC is an anti gun lobbying group.
Since you're too god damn lazy to click on the link, how 'bout I tell you the source of the study I cited?
THE FUCKING CDC.