Two men stood in front of the autonomous vehicle, operated by ride-hailing company Waymo, and literally tipped a fedora at her while she told them to move out of the way.
I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you have reading comprehension problems.
I wasn’t home. There was no possibility for me to prevent this theft, gun or no gun.
If it’s sarcasm meant to show that things can happen even when armed, no shit. If that is meant to show I shouldn’t have one at all, would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?
Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.
would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?
If not, what was even the point of the question? I get you thought it was pithy but… It’s just kind of dumb if you won’t allow the counterfactual to support my position.
Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.
No, you don’t want to answer it because you know how easy it is for me to find hundreds of videos online showing exactly what I’m describing and you really don’t want to admit it.
If “your gun didn’t save you in this one instance” means I shouldn’t have one, then the counterfactual should just as easily mean I should. But you’re not interested in applying your logic in both directions because that wouldn’t suit your position.
Well then aren’t you lucky you had a gun to prevent that theft?
I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you have reading comprehension problems.
I wasn’t home. There was no possibility for me to prevent this theft, gun or no gun.
If it’s sarcasm meant to show that things can happen even when armed, no shit. If that is meant to show I shouldn’t have one at all, would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?
Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.
If not, what was even the point of the question? I get you thought it was pithy but… It’s just kind of dumb if you won’t allow the counterfactual to support my position.
Yeah, I wouldn’t want to answer that question if I were you either.
Sorry, you being unable to come up with a good example is not my problem, so your question is moot.
No, you don’t want to answer it because you know how easy it is for me to find hundreds of videos online showing exactly what I’m describing and you really don’t want to admit it.
If “your gun didn’t save you in this one instance” means I shouldn’t have one, then the counterfactual should just as easily mean I should. But you’re not interested in applying your logic in both directions because that wouldn’t suit your position.
Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn’t have helped you.
Also, please quote me saying you shouldn’t have a gun, or at the very least implying it.