My guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car

[Nik]

And North Korean nukes have killed less people than George Bush's wars.

Making nonsesical comparisons is fun!

You don't get it do you, people can own guns and not have anybody hurt with them, even by accident. Yeah same can be said for a tactical nuclear warhead but a lone gun is rarely a national security threat.

Ah, I see. So if only some people are killed by guns its A OK, as long as its not a national security threat, eh?

 

[JenT]

And North Korean nukes have killed less people than George Bush's wars.

Making nonsesical comparisons is fun!

so has my tricycle, what's your point?

Making fun of your original asinine comparison.

well ya might wanna try again cause ya missed the mark.

 

[Father Time]

And North Korean nukes have killed less people than George Bush's wars.

Making nonsesical comparisons is fun!

You don't get it do you, people can own guns and not have anybody hurt with them, even by accident. Yeah same can be said for a tactical nuclear warhead but a lone gun is rarely a national security threat.

Ah, I see. So if only some people are killed by guns its A OK, as long as its not a national security threat, eh?

If some people are murdered with guns you arrest the murderers, you do not punish everyone who has a gun regardless of what they do with it. It's grossly unfair. We also don't threaten to go to war with every other nation that has nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon is far too dangerous though to be in the hands of a private citizen.

 

[JenT]

I never claimed to live in a perfect world, Jen-T. Not even in million years, sweetheart. Are you kidding? Would you like to read my post again? ? People with guns scare the holey sh*t outta me. I think, all of them, legal or not, are the problem here. But, that is all I ever meant to say.

There is the crux of the problem. It's not the guns or the lawful gun owners, it's your own irrational fear of inanimate objects like guns. You are suffering from an intense case of hoplophobia.

Really? Its not the guns or the gun owners?

So when I hear reports of a shooting in my neighborhood, whose fault is it exactly?

The criminal that committed the crime???

Just a thought...

 

[JenT]

Now, back ON topic. What say you?

Is it or is it not true that GUNS kill people?

Huh?

I dunno, lemme try

are ya still suckin wind?

Point fuckin' blank and yet you MISS?

Damn. And here I was talkin' good stuff about your marksmanship.

Fuck this shit.

You're on your own from now on, lady.

That's not in the contract

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Its not true that guns kill people in the respect that without a human being pulling the trigger, the bullet will not fire and no one will die. Hence the saying "Guns dont kill people, people kill people"

Do you understand what was meant by the comment "guns dont kill people" now?

 

[Diuretic]

That whole construct always struck me as being overly disingenuous.

Guns don't kill people. Of course not. People kill people. Diseases kill people. Animals kill people. Insects kill people. Heck we're surrounded by things that want to kill us!

 

[JenT]

Its not true that guns kill people in the respect that without a human being pulling the trigger, the bullet will not fire and no one will die. Hence the saying "Guns dont kill people, people kill people"

Do you understand what was meant by the comment "guns dont kill people" now?

wha?

 

[JenT]

That whole construct always struck me as being overly disingenuous.

Guns don't kill people. Of course not. People kill people. Diseases kill people. Animals kill people. Insects kill people. Heck we're surrounded by things that want to kill us!

And "he who fears what he suffers, already suffers what he fears - Marquis or Marionette, something french"

Death, (unless raptured) is pretty much a safe bet no matter what you do

 

[Liability]

If libs REJECT the notion that "guns don't kill people, people do" then they must accept the proposition that guns DO kill people.

Of course, guns don't operate on their own. That usually takes a person.

So why do libs seek to ban the tool used by the operator instead of banning the operator?

 

[Diuretic]

If libs REJECT the notion that "guns don't kill people, people do" then they must accept the proposition that guns DO kill people.

Of course, guns don't operate on their own. That usually takes a person.

So why do libs seek to ban the tool used by the operator instead of banning the operator?

How about seeing gun control as a set of sophisticated policy responses instead as simplistic notions?

Guns are used to kill people. They're also used to kill animals and rip up paper targets (I even took out a dead tree once with my trusty Remington 1200 and Brenneke slugs).

How about some people shouldn't be allowed near a BB gun? And no-one outside of the military and some police should be allowed near a fully automatic weapon?

 

[JenT]

If libs REJECT the notion that "guns don't kill people, people do" then they must accept the proposition that guns DO kill people.

Of course, guns don't operate on their own. That usually takes a person.

So why do libs seek to ban the tool used by the operator instead of banning the operator?

OH SO THAT'S why they're so desperate to keep funding abortion mills!

 

[Liability]

If libs REJECT the notion that "guns don't kill people, people do" then they must accept the proposition that guns DO kill people.

Of course, guns don't operate on their own. That usually takes a person.

So why do libs seek to ban the tool used by the operator instead of banning the operator?

How about seeing gun control as a set of sophisticated policy responses instead as simplistic notions?

Guns are used to kill people. They're also used to kill animals and rip up paper targets (I even took out a dead tree once with my trusty Remington 1200 and Brenneke slugs).

How about some people shouldn't be allowed near a BB gun? And no-one outside of the military and some police should be allowed near a fully automatic weapon?

Knives are used to kill people, too. Ask OJ. BAN KNIVES!

And ropes. OMG. Don't even get me started. BAN ROPE!

And abortion mills. Slaughter! BAN ABORTIONS!

 

[Diuretic]

If libs REJECT the notion that "guns don't kill people, people do" then they must accept the proposition that guns DO kill people.

Of course, guns don't operate on their own. That usually takes a person.

So why do libs seek to ban the tool used by the operator instead of banning the operator?

How about seeing gun control as a set of sophisticated policy responses instead as simplistic notions?

Guns are used to kill people. They're also used to kill animals and rip up paper targets (I even took out a dead tree once with my trusty Remington 1200 and Brenneke slugs).

How about some people shouldn't be allowed near a BB gun? And no-one outside of the military and some police should be allowed near a fully automatic weapon?

Knives are used to kill people, too. Ask OJ. BAN KNIVES!

And ropes. OMG. Don't even get me started. BAN ROPE!

And abortion mills. Slaughter! BAN ABORTIONS!

Your keyboard is in charge of your mind, get control of it!

 

[JenT]

 

[THE LIGHT]

That whole construct always struck me as being overly disingenuous.

Guns don't kill people. Of course not. People kill people. Diseases kill people. Animals kill people. Insects kill people. Heck we're surrounded by things that want to kill us!

Ahaaaaa!!!! Why don't we ban diseases?

 

[Diuretic]

That whole construct always struck me as being overly disingenuous.

Guns don't kill people. Of course not. People kill people. Diseases kill people. Animals kill people. Insects kill people. Heck we're surrounded by things that want to kill us!

Ahaaaaa!!!! Why don't we ban diseases?

We've eradicated a lot of them already and lessened the deleterious impact of others - disease control, not banning; like gun control, not banning

 

[Father Time]

If libs REJECT the notion that "guns don't kill people, people do" then they must accept the proposition that guns DO kill people.

Of course, guns don't operate on their own. That usually takes a person.

So why do libs seek to ban the tool used by the operator instead of banning the operator?

How about seeing gun control as a set of sophisticated policy responses instead as simplistic notions?

Guns are used to kill people. They're also used to kill animals and rip up paper targets (I even took out a dead tree once with my trusty Remington 1200 and Brenneke slugs).

How about some people shouldn't be allowed near a BB gun? And no-one outside of the military and some police should be allowed near a fully automatic weapon?

Do you know how freaking rare it is for a crime to be committed with a fully automatic weapon? More knife crimes are committed than with fully automatic weapons.

 

[Diuretic]

If libs REJECT the notion that "guns don't kill people, people do" then they must accept the proposition that guns DO kill people.

Of course, guns don't operate on their own. That usually takes a person.

So why do libs seek to ban the tool used by the operator instead of banning the operator?

How about seeing gun control as a set of sophisticated policy responses instead as simplistic notions?

Guns are used to kill people. They're also used to kill animals and rip up paper targets (I even took out a dead tree once with my trusty Remington 1200 and Brenneke slugs).

How about some people shouldn't be allowed near a BB gun? And no-one outside of the military and some police should be allowed near a fully automatic weapon?

Do you know how freaking rare it is for a crime to be committed with a fully automatic weapon? More knife crimes are committed than with fully automatic weapons.

So?

 

[Father Time]

How about seeing gun control as a set of sophisticated policy responses instead as simplistic notions?

Guns are used to kill people. They're also used to kill animals and rip up paper targets (I even took out a dead tree once with my trusty Remington 1200 and Brenneke slugs).

How about some people shouldn't be allowed near a BB gun? And no-one outside of the military and some police should be allowed near a fully automatic weapon?

Do you know how freaking rare it is for a crime to be committed with a fully automatic weapon? More knife crimes are committed than with fully automatic weapons.

So?

So banning those weapons won't do much good at all, and it just deprives citizens of automatic weapons who may not have had any intention of committing crime with them.

Although if the whole point of gun control is to reduce crime then what's the point of banning guns that criminals don't use in the first place?