Comments by "xybersurfer" (@xybersurfer) on "New Ridesharing App Offering Option To Select Armed Driver" video.

  1.  @2chrisby  it doesn't matter who owns the company. they owner won't be present during each ride to intervene
    2
  2. it would have been a better idea if their cars were bullet proof, instead of trying to solve everything with more guns
    2
  3.  @bluestripe5682  it's an implied statement. just like you talking about ensuring people's safety, implies that they are not safe
    1
  4.  @bluestripe5682  looking up a word for which i already know the meaning, won't allow me to read your mind
    1
  5.  @bluestripe5682  both "imply" and "infer" use statements that are not explicit (which is all i wanted to express). so what's false about the inferred statement?
    1
  6.  @bluestripe5682  again. what makes the inferred conclusion false or biased?
    1
  7.  @bluestripe5682  the logic was already presented, but you don't acknowledge it. ensuring people's safety (your words), requires them to be in danger. the reason that people are in danger is in @Bovinityleak comment. it's really simple
    1
  8. ​ @bluestripe5682  that's not how danger works. someone is not in danger only when someone is actually preforming an attack on them. it's also the risk of it happening
    1
  9.  @turkwendell6904  what does that mean?
    1
  10.  @turkwendell6904  oh. but what you were replying to, does seem to make sense though. if you can point out why it doesn't make sense, then we can stop playing guessing games
    1
  11.  @turkwendell6904  there is a guessing game, because i don't know why it does not make sense to you. it cannot be someone other than the USA, that is responsible for building their society
    1
  12.  @jackkanoff6265  you're blaming gun problems on black americans? conservatives are the ones pushing to have guns everywhere
    1
  13.  @jackkanoff6265  this equates to more guns because having one is literally part of the job, assuming people want this job. to answer your question. i of course wouldn't know whether you are carrying a gun, if you were my cab driver. i assume this question is going somewhere
    1
  14.  @turkwendell6904  Trump was not interested in stopping crime either
    1
  15. exactly
    1
  16. and?
    1
  17.  @2chrisby  i don't see any other comments in this thread. i do see that there are supposed to be 3 replies, but i only see the one i'm replying to now and my own. don't resort to personal attacks about intellect, when you are out of arguments
    1
  18.  @damongraham1398  i did not mean that minority businesses should not be supported
    1
  19.  @2chrisby  i don't see the text "free2". did i respond to a person with that name? i've responded to more than 2 threads
    1
  20.  @damongraham1398  that conceptually doesn't sound like a bad idea in those cases. but i think an armored car would go a lot further than a gun. not that they are mutually exclusive
    1
  21.  @damongraham1398  an armored car becomes exposed, when a gun is used. so i'm not so sure that it's a safer combination
    1
  22.  @damongraham1398  maybe, but that seems contrived. chances are that it's too late, especially when exposed to an attack with a gun. besides it's probably better to try to drive away, instead of trying to counter attack
    1