Mass shooting in Chicago - 13 shot

[TemplarKormac]

BBC News - Chicago park shooting leaves boy and others wounded


Shocked the media is covering this

Funny, I wonder where all the liberals went? Ah yes, this happened in their gun free city of Chicago. How ironic is that?

 

[PredFan]

I have no problem with your stance.

The only issue I had was with the statement "I only point a gun a someone when I intend to use it."

My point was, a circumstance may arise where a person who, as an example, is threatening you with a knife, or a club, might surrender at the appearance of a defensive firearm...in that instance you could brandish your gun and not intend on using it if it was successful in deterring a criminal.

In this example, once you deployed your firearm, would you be intent on using it?

The fact remains that he is wrong in his irrational claim that guns are only for killing.

That is not my claim. I resent you saying that. My claim is a guns purpose is to kill.

You resent me? There's a shocker.

 

[Yurt]

Good point

Cars do cause a lot of accidents. Too many people getting killed

What did we do? We made cars safer, we made tires safer, we required air bags and seatbelts, registrations, inspections, tougher licensing, we made roads safer, we made tougher drunk driving laws

Auto fatalities dropped dramatically

What do we do about gun deaths? We say fuck you...there is nothing that can be done about it

that is absolutely false. we have waiting periods, licensing for concealed carry, no automatic guns, we have gun locks etc...we have toughened gun laws...

gun deaths have dropped since the 80's

care to try again?

further, how does a car cause an accident. please explain.

I think that is a question that is not relevant if you are trying to compare cars to guns. Guns were definitely developed to kill people. Cars were not. The car deaths are a byproduct of the car simply being big enough to hurt people.

guns were also developed to hunt, not solely kill people. poison was developed to kill people, only later was used to kill animals as well.

but your problem is only with guns. you don't care about deaths, you only care about guns. you're dancing because you claim if something is designed to kill = bad, then you go back and say, no only if it is to kill people.

your logic is asinine. consider the nuclear bomb, its sole design purpose was to kill, however, it has had enormous benefits in terms of energy. if we follow your logic, we should never use nuclear or fission energy.

you're focused far to much on the tool and not enough on the resultant deaths. guns kill far less people than autos, yet, in your mind guns are bad because of their main purpose. that completely ignores reality as i mentioned above.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Remember what I told you earlier, it doesn't matter what a gun is made for, it can still be used for protection. And is, in the majority of cases.

Do you remember what I told you? It does matter because they kill people. They are not toys.

I never said they were toys dumbass.

Guns do not kill people dumbass.

You simply need to ignore Asclepias. Don't waste your time with someone who would argue a brick wall if he/she could.

 

[PredFan]

That is not my claim. I resent you saying that. My claim is a guns purpose is to kill.

so is rat poison....

No rat poisons purpose is not to kill humans. Thats why its called rat poison not people poison.

Guns are not called people killers. Guns are also made to kill animals for food. Face the fact that you are wrong and have the integrity to admit it.

 

[PredFan]

when and what post? i have not read every single post in this thread asswipe. i'm not the one dancing, you are. my stance is clear, yours is not.

but i understand that you don't want to clarify, because then you will look dumb.

He didn't, he has just changed his argument.

 

[ScienceRocks]

To kill someone with a gun is someone's choice.

SOMEONES=human being.


These people have a bad up bringing.

 

[PredFan]

Do you remember what I told you? It does matter because they kill people. They are not toys.

I never said they were toys dumbass.

Guns do not kill people dumbass.

You simply need to ignore Asclepias. Don't waste your time with someone who would argue a brick wall if he/she could.

Yeah, I'm at the point now where I'm just going to point at him and laugh.

 

[Asclepias]

that is absolutely false. we have waiting periods, licensing for concealed carry, no automatic guns, we have gun locks etc...we have toughened gun laws...

gun deaths have dropped since the 80's

care to try again?

further, how does a car cause an accident. please explain.

I think that is a question that is not relevant if you are trying to compare cars to guns. Guns were definitely developed to kill people. Cars were not. The car deaths are a byproduct of the car simply being big enough to hurt people.

guns were also developed to hunt, not solely kill people. poison was developed to kill people, only later was used to kill animals as well.

but your problem is only with guns. you don't care about deaths, you only care about guns. you're dancing because you claim if something is designed to kill = bad, then you go back and say, no only if it is to kill people.

your logic is asinine. consider the nuclear bomb, its sole design purpose was to kill, however, it has had enormous benefits in terms of energy. if we follow your logic, we should never use nuclear or fission energy.

you're focused far to much on the tool and not enough on the resultant deaths. guns kill far less people than autos, yet, in your mind guns are bad because of their main purpose. that completely ignores reality as i mentioned above.

So you have my statement and you still are arguing?! Guns were developed to kill people. Thats a fact. Please show me where poison was used on people first.

Again you are trying to change the premise. That wont work with me. Nuclear power plants where not designed to kill people. Nuclear bombs were. Your logic is faulty.

I dont have a problem with guns at all and again please show where I said that. If you cant then please stop lying and show some integrity.

 

[Asclepias]

when and what post? i have not read every single post in this thread asswipe. i'm not the one dancing, you are. my stance is clear, yours is not.

but i understand that you don't want to clarify, because then you will look dumb.

He didn't, he has just changed his argument.

Then it should be easy to quote where I changed it then right? My guess is you cant but you want to be right.

 

[Asclepias]

so is rat poison....

No rat poisons purpose is not to kill humans. Thats why its called rat poison not people poison.

Guns are not called people killers. Guns are also made to kill animals for food. Face the fact that you are wrong and have the integrity to admit it.

Whats that got to do with the fact guns were made to kill people? Face the fact that you are reaching for everything under the kitchen sink to avoid that.

 

[Asclepias]

I never said they were toys dumbass.

Guns do not kill people dumbass.

You simply need to ignore Asclepias. Don't waste your time with someone who would argue a brick wall if he/she could.

Yeah, I'm at the point now where I'm just going to point at him and laugh.

Thats what most people do when they dont want to admit they are arguing just to say they are right. They point and laugh and hope no one notices their argument laying in shreds around their ankles.

 

[rightwinger]

Ever hear of hunting? Ever hear of protecting yourself and your family if you live in the country/woods? Guess what - wild animals will attack and kill humans. Not everyone that has a gun thinks of killing another human. Grow Up!

If you live somewhere and have to hunt for your food or kill wild animals attacking you that makes sense. You are killing something. My neighbor who shops at Safeway, encounters no wild animals, but is not prepared to kill another human being doesnt need a gun.

So you want to tell your neighbor whether or not he/she is allowed to have a gun?

Believe it or not, humans can be just as wild as animals, and some are even more dangerous than a rabid raccoon. If you think you can outwit them, you'd better think again. Many are doped up, drunk, and pissed off at the world. Nothing you say will matter to them. They see you as another fool that dared to cross their path. They don't know the law (some do, but still) and they don't follow the law; they make their own laws.

I'm willing to tell my neighbors who can and cannot have a gun

 

[Yurt]

I think that is a question that is not relevant if you are trying to compare cars to guns. Guns were definitely developed to kill people. Cars were not. The car deaths are a byproduct of the car simply being big enough to hurt people.

guns were also developed to hunt, not solely kill people. poison was developed to kill people, only later was used to kill animals as well.

but your problem is only with guns. you don't care about deaths, you only care about guns. you're dancing because you claim if something is designed to kill = bad, then you go back and say, no only if it is to kill people.

your logic is asinine. consider the nuclear bomb, its sole design purpose was to kill, however, it has had enormous benefits in terms of energy. if we follow your logic, we should never use nuclear or fission energy.

you're focused far to much on the tool and not enough on the resultant deaths. guns kill far less people than autos, yet, in your mind guns are bad because of their main purpose. that completely ignores reality as i mentioned above.

So you have my statement and you still are arguing?! Guns were developed to kill people. Thats a fact. Please show me where poison was used on people first.

Again you are trying to change the premise. That wont work with me. Nuclear power plants where not designed to kill people. Nuclear bombs were. Your logic is faulty.

I dont have a problem with guns at all and again please show where I said that. If you cant then please stop lying and show some integrity.

now you're just flailing and being hysterical. seriously, poison was first developed, eg, taken from its natural state for another purpose, to poison people, it was the preferred method of assassination for thousands of years.

once i saw your statement, i showed how you have danced around. and why would i not argue that your statement is flawed if that is what i believe. don't like it, then fuck off.

your entire rant in this thread is anti gun. it is not anti death, it is anti gun, yet you claim you are not against guns. if was death you cared about, then you would have a problem with other tools we use.

i'm done with you in this thread, the others were right about you.

 

[Asclepias]

guns were also developed to hunt, not solely kill people. poison was developed to kill people, only later was used to kill animals as well.

but your problem is only with guns. you don't care about deaths, you only care about guns. you're dancing because you claim if something is designed to kill = bad, then you go back and say, no only if it is to kill people.

your logic is asinine. consider the nuclear bomb, its sole design purpose was to kill, however, it has had enormous benefits in terms of energy. if we follow your logic, we should never use nuclear or fission energy.

you're focused far to much on the tool and not enough on the resultant deaths. guns kill far less people than autos, yet, in your mind guns are bad because of their main purpose. that completely ignores reality as i mentioned above.

So you have my statement and you still are arguing?! Guns were developed to kill people. Thats a fact. Please show me where poison was used on people first.

Again you are trying to change the premise. That wont work with me. Nuclear power plants where not designed to kill people. Nuclear bombs were. Your logic is faulty.

I dont have a problem with guns at all and again please show where I said that. If you cant then please stop lying and show some integrity.

now you're just flailing and being hysterical. seriously, poison was first developed, eg, taken from its natural state for another purpose, to poison people, it was the preferred method of assassination for thousands of years.

once i saw your statement, i showed how you have danced around. and why would i not argue that your statement is flawed if that is what i believe. don't like it, then fuck off.

your entire rant in this thread is anti gun. it is not anti death, it is anti gun, yet you claim you are not against guns. if was death you cared about, then you would have a problem with other tools we use.

i'm done with you in this thread, the others were right about you.

You're the one flailing and failing Yurt. Show me something that proves poison was used first on people. This will be interesting to say the least. My recollection shows it was used to take down animals while hunting in the jungle. Saying you showed me dancing is not showing me. Quote where I changed my position even once. Also show me where my rant as you put it is anti-gun. If I was anti-gun I wouldn"t have one. Does that make sense?

 

[Missourian]

You lost me along the way here.

I own a pile of firearms.

But I would argue that only 3 are designed and purposed for killing people.

I'd say only the handguns and the ARs/AKs fall into that category.

I have a shotgun for the purpose hunting migratory birds and waterfowl.

I have 22s and a 17 HMR whose purpose is hunting squirrels and rabbits.

I have a 410 bore single shot pistol whose purpose is dispatching poisonous snakes and small game.

I have a 30/30 for medium game at short distance in brush.

I have a 30-06 for large game.

I have a 7mm rem mag for long distance medium game.

And the list goes on...different caliber/firearm combinations for differing requirements.

Most importantly, none of the firearms I own have ever left the house of their own volition and killed anything.

 

[Asclepias]

You lost me along the way here.

I own a pile of firearms.

But I would argue that only 3 are designed and purposed for killing people.

I'd say only the handguns and the ARs/AKs fall into that category.

I have a shotgun for the purpose hunting migratory birds and waterfowl.

I have 22s and a 17 HMR whose purpose is hunting squirrels and rabbits.

I have a 410 bore single shot pistol whose purpose is dispatching poisonous snakes and small game.

I have a 30/30 for medium game at short distance in brush.

I have a 30-06 for large game.

I have a 7mm rem mag for long distance medium game.

And the list goes on...different caliber/firearm combinations for differing requirements.

Most importantly, none of the firearms I own have ever left the house of their own volition and killed anything.

Thanks for that list. i wonder why Yurt and Prefan couldnt point out the same thing you did? For arguments sake I would say that those weapons were produced as an afterthought or sub-concept of the original concept of a fire arm. Still you seem to have found a hole in my argument. Rep points for that.

 

[Yurt]

i did you lying sack

 

[Asclepias]

i did you lying sack

No you didnt. My position never changed. Yours did numerous times but I brought you back on topic. I guess calling me a name expresses your whole frustration at not being able to make a simple point.

 

[novasteve]

Lib wondering why mass shootings in Chicago only make nat headlines if an assault weapon is used
Chicago Tribune