I don’t give a fuck about your dating options. I have tried to be as neutral as possible, but you keep making this about your gun safe. I don’t give a fuck about your gun safe. If a significant other doesn’t feel safe, regardless of whether you think it’s rational or not, it’s dismissive and inconsiderate to just…

There are plenty of of studies that suggest that guns in a home, whether in a safe or not or not, increase the risk of being harmed by that gun. There are also studies which don’t suggest that. Seeing as how most of these studies are based on data that is 20 or 30 years old doesn’t help. Basically, the studies that…

Right, so are you are unwilling to compromise, even for someone you care about. If objects are more important to you than relationships with people, that’s fine. I can’t tell you how to live your life. If I want advice for having a loving relationship with a gun, I think you’re probably a great source. If I want…

Please compare your second sentence to the last sentence in my first paragraph. I already covered the fact that it’s a two-way street.

So good on you for pointing out what I already pointed out. You might consider stepping up your game, as well.

I think the fact that he hasn’t been honest with her is too big of a breach of trust. I also think it’s entirely rational to treat any gun that still has a firing pin or striker as being dangerous.

And rat poison can’t harm you unless it gets in your blood stream, but it’s still fucking dangerous. Safety measures typically aren’t required for things that are harmless. If she sees no benefit of having the guns in her home, all she’ll see is the danger, which is a perfectly reasonable outlook on her part on…

Can you please point me to the study that found 500,000 DGUs per year using CDC data? 

Because guns are dangerous. If you disagree with that, I assume you weren’t paying attention in your gun safety class. If she doesn’t want them around because she fears for her safety, I think that’s totally reasonable. If he doesn’t respect her views, then he doesn’t respect her. If she doesn’t respect his hobby,…

No, it isn’t. Two can play at that game!

If they value a gun, or any other object, over a person they care about, that’s shameful. Either that, or they don’t really care about that person.

Because what he values is shameful. Kind of like calling women “chicks.”

Jager Bombs are never the way to go.

I don’t know, you seem to be the poopypants in this situation.

The Big Bang Theory is the most popular show on television. Popular =/= good.

Sure, that’s the mature approach, but this isn’t the first time I’ve crossed paths with Prince Ruprecht. I’ve tried the mature approach—it didn’t work. He seems to exist just to antagonize people here and get into arguments and complain that no one passes his progressive purity test. In small doses, that’s okay, but…

And I respect your opinion, whether I agree with it or not, because at least you’ve demonstrated the honesty to admit your error.

All right, I’ll clarify—are you unable to admit that you made a mistake, you don’t know extraordinarily basic math, or that you simply don’t know what the word “majority” means?

Do you not know what words mean?

That sounds like something Garth Marenghi would write.

Excellent username/comment synergy.

You’ve moved the goalposts, but that doesn’t matter. You do understand that the sum total of “inconsequential” amounts of food thrown away by individuals is not inconsequential, right? Or are you as solipsistic as you seem to be?

By no good reason, do you mean the 870 million people per year that could be fed if food…