A challenge for the left & I bet none of them can fulfill it...

[HappyJoy]

Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.

If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.

The problem is NOT guns, rather it's PEOPLE, period. A gun does no harm unless a mentally unstable person uses it to inflict harm. The problem is the mentally disturbed, the haters, the vengeful, the fanatics, the extremists, the rogue banner carriers, the suicidal, the losers that need front page headlines, the wannabe martyrs, gangs, criminals, egotistical bullies ( including members of law enforcement ), and racists.

Guns do not kill, but lunatics with guns do kill.

I'll never understand what's so hard to understand about the problem. I do not know why people blame guns. I do not know why people think that we can legislate guns out of the hands of the above mentioned people. People will get their hands on guns whether we have gun restriction laws or not, just plain fact.

In short, "no solution exists, so why the hell try".

The lunatics mostly obtain guns legally. Of course some guns are stolen, but purchased or stolen guns used in mass shootings of innocent men, women and children originated from the hand of a gun producer, and/or purveyor to a gun buyer; somewhere along that line one of them was careless, greedy or complicit in the future use of the gun for evil.

Are you willing to use the same logic concerning automobiles, planes, knives, ships, baseball bats, axes, hammers, natural gas piped into homes, arrows, swimming pools, race tracks, drag racers, parachutes, tall buildings, bridges, and many other items, inventions, and instruments of an advanced and civilized world?

Again, it's PEOPLE and NOT guns. Does a car kill anyone when not in motion? Does a kitchen knife kill anyone while it's in a drawer? Does an airplane kill anyone while sitting idle at an airport? Does a tall building kill anyone unless some nut jumps from it? Does a swimming pool kill anyone unless a careless person drowns in it? How does a gun kill unless a person uses it to kill?

Should we ban automobiles due to the high number of deaths each year from wrecks? Should we ban hospitals because over 400,000 people die each year from infections obtained during hospital stays? Should we ban airplanes because they crash and kill hundreds at a time?

Why are you pointing out things that are regulated, registered and often times illegal? This just deflated your argument.

 

[RandallFlagg]

People use guns to kill people
Everyone knows this.

The democrats think by banning one type of weapon they can prevent mass murder.
It may cut it down--until mass murderers learn how to build bombs out of household items.


All they have to do is channel their inner McVeigh! Or Rudolph.

Actually, as people tend to point out, criminals would still obtain guns illegally if you banned them. The law would only stop those who actually follow the law.

McVeigh (if I recall) never used a gun - he used fertilizer. Damn....we should probably ban cow shit as well....and they tried for a while, until they discovered that the VAST majority of farmers and ranchers (myself included) use it for it's intended purpose.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?

I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.

You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.

Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.

It's not a reason. If you want to argue that only things that's purpose is to hurt people should be illegal then what about LSD, MDMA or heroin? Gambling in many instances is illegal. Those have purposes other than to harm humans.

Land mines could be used to defend your property, they are illegal.

You don't have an argument.

Those things you mentioned are decisions you make on your own, to harm yourself. People who are that determined would turn to something else, like alcohol.

Land mines are explosives. If used, they'd likely damage other people and property. If you fire a gun at an intruder, you hurt just that intruder, in all likelihood. If you fired a missile at them, you'd destroy your house, and possibly another. You also cannot hunt with explosives, there would be nothing left to eat.

You're attempting to draw parallels where there aren't any.

I love this kid!!

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?

I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.

You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.

Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.

And yet, young blood, a scalpel is an instrument of medicine, but it is used to kill the unborn on a daily basis.

I killed a ton of unborns with a tube sock in highschool. I'm sure you did too

It's funny - and true - but I never took a pregnant girl to an abortion clinic to have a Doctor murder the baby. We have lost a complete generation of children to the liberal mentality. Think about that.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?

I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.

You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.

Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.

It's not a reason. If you want to argue that only things that's purpose is to hurt people should be illegal then what about LSD, MDMA or heroin? Gambling in many instances is illegal. Those have purposes other than to harm humans.

Land mines could be used to defend your property, they are illegal.

You don't have an argument.

Those things you mentioned are decisions you make on your own, to harm yourself. People who are that determined would turn to something else, like alcohol.[/qote]

Uh, same with guns, people make a decision to use them and can affect more than just the person who made the decision to pick one up. Again, I don't really see an argument.

Land mines are explosives. If used, they'd likely damage other people and property. If you fire a gun at an intruder, you hurt just that intruder, in all likelihood. If you fired a missile at them, you'd destroy your house, and possibly another. You also cannot hunt with explosives, there would be nothing left to eat.

Guns don't do damage to other people? Why do you get to choose a very specific situation for when a gun is used? Did you see Orlando? I didn't mention missiles but what if someone shot 50 people in a night club?

You're attempting to draw parallels where there aren't any.

Not parallels, I'm trying to see why guns are treated differently.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.

You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.

Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.

It's not a reason. If you want to argue that only things that's purpose is to hurt people should be illegal then what about LSD, MDMA or heroin? Gambling in many instances is illegal. Those have purposes other than to harm humans.

Land mines could be used to defend your property, they are illegal.

You don't have an argument.

Those things you mentioned are decisions you make on your own, to harm yourself. People who are that determined would turn to something else, like alcohol.

Land mines are explosives. If used, they'd likely damage other people and property. If you fire a gun at an intruder, you hurt just that intruder, in all likelihood. If you fired a missile at them, you'd destroy your house, and possibly another. You also cannot hunt with explosives, there would be nothing left to eat.

You're attempting to draw parallels where there aren't any.

I love this kid!!

If he/she could prove a point I'd join you.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.

If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.

The problem is NOT guns, rather it's PEOPLE, period. A gun does no harm unless a mentally unstable person uses it to inflict harm. The problem is the mentally disturbed, the haters, the vengeful, the fanatics, the extremists, the rogue banner carriers, the suicidal, the losers that need front page headlines, the wannabe martyrs, gangs, criminals, egotistical bullies ( including members of law enforcement ), and racists.

Guns do not kill, but lunatics with guns do kill.

I'll never understand what's so hard to understand about the problem. I do not know why people blame guns. I do not know why people think that we can legislate guns out of the hands of the above mentioned people. People will get their hands on guns whether we have gun restriction laws or not, just plain fact.

In short, "no solution exists, so why the hell try".

The lunatics mostly obtain guns legally. Of course some guns are stolen, but purchased or stolen guns used in mass shootings of innocent men, women and children originated from the hand of a gun producer, and/or purveyor to a gun buyer; somewhere along that line one of them was careless, greedy or complicit in the future use of the gun for evil.

Are you willing to use the same logic concerning automobiles, planes, knives, ships, baseball bats, axes, hammers, natural gas piped into homes, arrows, swimming pools, race tracks, drag racers, parachutes, tall buildings, bridges, and many other items, inventions, and instruments of an advanced and civilized world?

Again, it's PEOPLE and NOT guns. Does a car kill anyone when not in motion? Does a kitchen knife kill anyone while it's in a drawer? Does an airplane kill anyone while sitting idle at an airport? Does a tall building kill anyone unless some nut jumps from it? Does a swimming pool kill anyone unless a careless person drowns in it? How does a gun kill unless a person uses it to kill?

Should we ban automobiles due to the high number of deaths each year from wrecks? Should we ban hospitals because over 400,000 people die each year from infections obtained during hospital stays? Should we ban airplanes because they crash and kill hundreds at a time?

Why are you pointing out things that are regulated, registered and often times illegal? This just deflated your argument.

So are guns regulated, must be registered, and illegal to have in certain cases. Yet, laws do not stop gun violence.

Are the guns used by gang members registered? Are the guns purchased from the trunk of cars registered? Are the guns sold between family members registered? Are all guns sold on the internet registered? Are all guns sold at yard sales and flea markets registered? Are all guns that come across our borders registered? Are all guns sold from one friend to another friend registered?

Do existing gun laws prevent gun violence? Will gang members turn in their unregistered weapons? Will criminals turn in their unregistered weapons? Will drug dealers and pimps turn in their unregistered weapons? Who has unregistered weapons, where are they, and how many are unregistered? Who will go door-to-door and search for unregistered weapons? How will laws keep guns out of the hands of citizens, and how will laws stop gun violence?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.

If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.

Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?

I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.

You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.

Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.

It's not a reason. If you want to argue that only things that's purpose is to hurt people should be illegal then what about LSD, MDMA or heroin? Gambling in many instances is illegal. Those have purposes other than to harm humans.

Land mines could be used to defend your property, they are illegal.

You don't have an argument.

No, Land mines can NOT be used to defend your property - they are (1) declared an explosive by the BATF and (2) illegal except in time of war. So you go out and try to buy a Claymore. You will spend 20 years in Leavenworth. Same goes with anyone who possesses an automatic weapon without the proper license (FFL)

 

[RandallFlagg]

You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.

Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.

It's not a reason. If you want to argue that only things that's purpose is to hurt people should be illegal then what about LSD, MDMA or heroin? Gambling in many instances is illegal. Those have purposes other than to harm humans.

Land mines could be used to defend your property, they are illegal.

You don't have an argument.

Those things you mentioned are decisions you make on your own, to harm yourself. People who are that determined would turn to something else, like alcohol.

Land mines are explosives. If used, they'd likely damage other people and property. If you fire a gun at an intruder, you hurt just that intruder, in all likelihood. If you fired a missile at them, you'd destroy your house, and possibly another. You also cannot hunt with explosives, there would be nothing left to eat.

You're attempting to draw parallels where there aren't any.

I love this kid!!

If he/she could prove a point I'd join you.

Oh, I think Young Blood has proven the case many times already.

 

[Borillar]

Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.

If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.

A gun is a tool, not a sentient creature. Then again, H-Bombs, nerve gas, and land mines don't have the will to kill anybody either. That isn't an argument in favor of putting these things in the hands of just anyone.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.

If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.

The problem is NOT guns, rather it's PEOPLE, period. A gun does no harm unless a mentally unstable person uses it to inflict harm. The problem is the mentally disturbed, the haters, the vengeful, the fanatics, the extremists, the rogue banner carriers, the suicidal, the losers that need front page headlines, the wannabe martyrs, gangs, criminals, egotistical bullies ( including members of law enforcement ), and racists.

Guns do not kill, but lunatics with guns do kill.

I'll never understand what's so hard to understand about the problem. I do not know why people blame guns. I do not know why people think that we can legislate guns out of the hands of the above mentioned people. People will get their hands on guns whether we have gun restriction laws or not, just plain fact.

In short, "no solution exists, so why the hell try".

The lunatics mostly obtain guns legally. Of course some guns are stolen, but purchased or stolen guns used in mass shootings of innocent men, women and children originated from the hand of a gun producer, and/or purveyor to a gun buyer; somewhere along that line one of them was careless, greedy or complicit in the future use of the gun for evil.

Are you willing to use the same logic concerning automobiles, planes, knives, ships, baseball bats, axes, hammers, natural gas piped into homes, arrows, swimming pools, race tracks, drag racers, parachutes, tall buildings, bridges, and many other items, inventions, and instruments of an advanced and civilized world?

Again, it's PEOPLE and NOT guns. Does a car kill anyone when not in motion? Does a kitchen knife kill anyone while it's in a drawer? Does an airplane kill anyone while sitting idle at an airport? Does a tall building kill anyone unless some nut jumps from it? Does a swimming pool kill anyone unless a careless person drowns in it? How does a gun kill unless a person uses it to kill?

Should we ban automobiles due to the high number of deaths each year from wrecks? Should we ban hospitals because over 400,000 people die each year from infections obtained during hospital stays? Should we ban airplanes because they crash and kill hundreds at a time?

Why are you pointing out things that are regulated, registered and often times illegal? This just deflated your argument.

So are guns regulated, must be registered, and illegal to have in certain cases. Yet, laws do not stop gun violence.

Are the guns used by gang members registered? Are the guns purchased from the trunk of cars registered? Are the guns sold between family members registered? Are all guns sold on the internet registered? Are all guns sold at yard sales and flea markets registered? Are all guns that come across our borders registered? Are all guns sold from one friend to another friend registered?




Do existing gun laws prevent gun violence? Will gang members turn in their unregistered weapons? Will criminals turn in their unregistered weapons? Will drug dealers and pimps turn in their unregistered weapons? Who has unregistered weapons, where are they, and how many are unregistered? Who will go door-to-door and search for unregistered weapons? How will laws keep guns out of the hands of citizens, and how will laws stop gun violence?

Do existing laws prevent people from being killed on carnival rides? From being eaten by alligators? dying from automobile accidents? Drowning in swimming pools? Being killed by drunk drivers? Being hit by lightning? Of course not. Never have and never will.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Uh, same with guns, people make a decision to use them and can affect more than just the person who made the decision to pick one up. Again, I don't really see an argument.

People can't make you decide to use drugs, it's a decision you make on your own. You also can't defend yourself with drugs. You also can't hunt with drugs. I've also pointed out earlier that, much like with drugs, if a criminal wants a gun, the government isn't stopping them. Because people want to hunt, and because criminals will always have access to guns, citizens also need access to guns to protect themselves from said criminals and to hunt.

Guns don't do damage to other people? Why do you get to choose a very specific situation for when a gun is used? Did you see Orlando? I didn't mention missiles but what if someone shot 50 people in a night club?

I was pointing out that using drugs on yourself is a personal decision, and are only used on yourself. Guns are used to protect yourself and others, and banning them would mean only criminals have them. That was a gun free zone. Guns being banned there didn't stop a criminal from bringing a gun into that zone.

Not parallels, I'm trying to see why guns are treated differently.

Because they're inherently different in every way from the examples you're giving.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.

If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.

A gun is a tool, not a sentient creature. Then again, H-Bombs, nerve gas, and land mines don't have the will to kill anybody either. That isn't an argument in favor of putting these things in the hands of just anyone.

Dammit, I've been caught - I'd better run out to the barn and hide my H-Bomb, nerve gas and land mines better......Jesus.

 

[HappyJoy]

Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.

It's not a reason. If you want to argue that only things that's purpose is to hurt people should be illegal then what about LSD, MDMA or heroin? Gambling in many instances is illegal. Those have purposes other than to harm humans.

Land mines could be used to defend your property, they are illegal.

You don't have an argument.

Those things you mentioned are decisions you make on your own, to harm yourself. People who are that determined would turn to something else, like alcohol.

Land mines are explosives. If used, they'd likely damage other people and property. If you fire a gun at an intruder, you hurt just that intruder, in all likelihood. If you fired a missile at them, you'd destroy your house, and possibly another. You also cannot hunt with explosives, there would be nothing left to eat.

You're attempting to draw parallels where there aren't any.

I love this kid!!

If he/she could prove a point I'd join you.

Oh, I think Young Blood has proven the case many times already.

In your own words, what was proved? Seriously, I'd like to hear from you what exactly was proven.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's not a reason. If you want to argue that only things that's purpose is to hurt people should be illegal then what about LSD, MDMA or heroin? Gambling in many instances is illegal. Those have purposes other than to harm humans.

Land mines could be used to defend your property, they are illegal.

You don't have an argument.

Those things you mentioned are decisions you make on your own, to harm yourself. People who are that determined would turn to something else, like alcohol.

Land mines are explosives. If used, they'd likely damage other people and property. If you fire a gun at an intruder, you hurt just that intruder, in all likelihood. If you fired a missile at them, you'd destroy your house, and possibly another. You also cannot hunt with explosives, there would be nothing left to eat.

You're attempting to draw parallels where there aren't any.

I love this kid!!

If he/she could prove a point I'd join you.

Oh, I think Young Blood has proven the case many times already.

In your own words, what was proved? Seriously, I'd like to hear from you what exactly was proven.

Like I just told you - land mines are NOT legal, by any stretch of the imagination. Never have been, never will. Get your act together before you enter into an argument that you have no chance of winning.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Change your name to Unhinged-Joy

Why is it OK for inanimate object to be illegal unless it's a gun? What's the difference? Your OP is a sort of flim-flam strawman, liberals aren't saying that guns are sentient beings, nor is that considered a reason for something to be legal or not. It's simply a bullshit argument.

I suppose if you wanna get rid of guns it would be
Funny how under the most anti gun prez we've ever had and all these mass shootings.
You'd think it was by design wouldn't ya.

 

[HappyJoy]

Uh, same with guns, people make a decision to use them and can affect more than just the person who made the decision to pick one up. Again, I don't really see an argument.

People can't make you decide to use drugs, it's a decision you make on your own. You also can't defend yourself with drugs. You also can't hunt with drugs. I've also pointed out earlier that, much like with drugs, if a criminal wants a gun, the government isn't stopping them. Because people want to hunt, and because criminals will always have access to guns, citizens also need access to guns to protect themselves from said criminals and to hunt.

Guns don't do damage to other people? Why do you get to choose a very specific situation for when a gun is used? Did you see Orlando? I didn't mention missiles but what if someone shot 50 people in a night club?

I was pointing out that using drugs on yourself is a personal decision, and are only used on yourself. Guns are used to protect yourself and others, and banning them would mean only criminals have them. That was a gun free zone. Guns being banned there didn't stop a criminal from bringing a gun into that zone.

Not parallels, I'm trying to see why guns are treated differently.

Because they're inherently different in every way from the examples you're giving.

You're not even on topic at this point.

The OP simply asked when a gun ever knew or chose to shoot someone. Your'e not getting into very, very specific uses of drugs, you say it's a choice. So is deciding to shoot someone, that is also a choice and to be clear, made by the person not the gun. Just like drugs.

You could poison someone with the same drugs that are used to help people, just like guns. But no, you have this bizarre argument that drugs are only used for personal use and guns are only used for personal protection, simply not true.

Land mines are explosives and they can harm multiple people...yeah, same with guns.

Really the only thing all these objects have in common is that none of them think for themselves and with the exception of guns nobody is asking when they ever did.

 

[HappyJoy]

Those things you mentioned are decisions you make on your own, to harm yourself. People who are that determined would turn to something else, like alcohol.

Land mines are explosives. If used, they'd likely damage other people and property. If you fire a gun at an intruder, you hurt just that intruder, in all likelihood. If you fired a missile at them, you'd destroy your house, and possibly another. You also cannot hunt with explosives, there would be nothing left to eat.

You're attempting to draw parallels where there aren't any.

I love this kid!!

If he/she could prove a point I'd join you.

Oh, I think Young Blood has proven the case many times already.

In your own words, what was proved? Seriously, I'd like to hear from you what exactly was proven.

Like I just told you - land mines are NOT legal, by any stretch of the imagination. Never have been, never will. Get your act together before you enter into an argument that you have no chance of winning.

Nobody is arguing that landmines are legal. I didn't think you were following along.

 

[Moonglow]

Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.

If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.

Yeah, still trying to convince people that meteoroids are innocent killers also..

 

[HappyJoy]

Change your name to Unhinged-Joy

Why is it OK for inanimate object to be illegal unless it's a gun? What's the difference? Your OP is a sort of flim-flam strawman, liberals aren't saying that guns are sentient beings, nor is that considered a reason for something to be legal or not. It's simply a bullshit argument.

I suppose if you wanna get rid of guns it would be
Funny how under the most anti gun prez we've ever had and all these mass shootings.
You'd think it was by design wouldn't ya.

I'm not for getting rid of all guns. The president isn't either. Funny how the right always goes directly to or hints at conspiracies like false shootings.