Anti gun fags rekt
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Holy shit guys I think I figured out the ultimate way to rek these idiots. My kikebook has blown up with euro trash bitching about murica but this works every time.
Literally just ask them why and how. Be curious and when they answer act confused (or mostly you really are confused by there shit) When they see that someone they think is neutral is confused and can call the problems with there ideas they shut up or more often get violent and abusive. Call them out on them this like "woh why are you being mean all of a sudden? I thought you guys were the non violent ones."
This angers them even more and they usually sperg out hard or go on a rant with "facts" but then you can use those "facts" to go another round and really fuck with them.
It's not very productive but there is no reasoning with some of these people. Might as well burst there bubble and have some fun.
One of the things this mong shared. I generally have no clue what the fuck the guy means.
u fockin wot m8y
So yeah you basically act retarded and they get mad.
>>27531747
Still trying to parse what that quote is saying. Is he saying the bills you get while having no medical insurance are so scary that you should forget about having a gun?
>>27531850
He's trying to be clever by linking two concepts that aren't related in any way shape or form and he's failing miserably at it.
>>27531850
That's pretty much what I asked and when they couldn't explain without sounding even more retarded they go mad.
>>27531850
It's more scary to be without medical insurance than to be without a gun.
Which is true, from a purely statistical standpoint.
The flaw in his reasoning is that the two aren't mutually exclusive.
>people who feel safer with a gun than with a seatbelt don't yet have a fully adult concept of scary
>>27531850
Yes. The Gibson quote also insinuates that pro-gunners are babbys.
Because insulting your opponents means you're very smart.
>>27531747
Carrying a gun is a huge burden from a safety perspective. If you're aware and avoid conflict like you ought to when carrying, you're extremely unlikely to need the gun.
You must concern yourself with how the gun is stored, if you CC your clothing options are limited, and you have to always consider if you're printing. Like a second class citizen, there are places where you won't be welcome with your CCW.
But having a gun means taking your defense into your own hands. Most people outsource their security to the police. They obligate and force others through taxation to pay for their protection. Through their reliance on police they don't even realize how cowardly it is to feel entitled to protection but unwilling to take it into their own hands.
I put up with the burden of carrying a gun not because I think I'm likely to need it, but because I don't think there's any moral justification for leaving your life up to others who don't even know you. It's not okay to expect people to pay your way, in healthcare or in security when you have the means to do it yourself.
Gun owners should be respected for taking on responsibility and for not shifting their need for security on to others. Instead, many people fear and hate them. They talk as if they're anti-gun when the laws they support, as laws govern the actions of men not objects, are anti-gun-owner.
>>27531722
What I do is write a HUGE wall of text containing statistics and pro-gun arguments (I have a copy-pasta saved in a word document).
>The trick is that they are obviously not going to read all of that.
So, the guy obviously responds without addressing/refuting ALL of my points listed on my first post... Now he's caught in my hook.
I say "Why don't you refute all of my points before making your own arguments? I wrote all that shit for a proper debate, and you just ignore most of my points and blabber about your own opinions? You are not worthy for further debate. I did my part in this debate, but you are disrespectful and lazy enough to follow my (page) of arguments and statistics with only a few worthless sentences. Muted and ignored."
Works EVERY fucking time, my friend.
When I was an internet debate rookie, I tried reasoning with anti-gunners, butI found soon enough that the only thing that matters to me is to see my opponent lose and cry.
>>27532172
Willing to share that word document?
>>27532172
>the only thing that matters to me is to see my opponent lose and cry
I want to buy you a fucking whiskey now, you god damn magnificent bastard
>>27532052
I.... I'm quoting that. That whole block of text is going into my "awesome things i've found on the internet" folder.
>>27532319
nope. Besides, it's really, really easy to make yourself. Just brainstorm some points and copy/paste data.
>>27532337
Thanks d00d.
