Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you really need to remove all context to make a point?
Translation: Yeah I said it so I'll deflect to something else like I always do.
Translation- I needed to remove the rest of the conversation to almost make a point that wasn't really made.
CONTEXT. Understand it. IN this case, I was specifically asking that if a gun sold at your store was used to murder someone, would you get out of the gun business.
You never did answer that one for some reason. I wonder why.
and the finnish freak and ignorant joe have left the room.
How typical.
[
Nice deflection there, chief.
My point was that no gun kills people spontaneously. You replied what if they did. Implying you believe it was possible.
Now having called you on it and having shown the absurdity you want to pivot to a different topic.
For the record, a gun sold in my store was used to kill someone. I feel no more responsibility over that than if I had sold a car that had killed someone or a prescription drug that someone abused. Why should I?
And the Finnish Freak and Ignorant Joe have left the room.
How typical.
And the Finnish Freak and Ignorant Joe have left the room.
How typical.
I'm waiting for an adult response.
I'm not sure if your posting on this thread is the weakest posting performance I have ever seen - but it is Top 10 material.
Put it this way - if AK-47s could not kill people - would they still sell well?
Rabbi -
If AK47's could kill without using bullets - people would buy them.
IfAK47's could issue bullets and not kill - people would not buy them.
Never mind that anyone that knows anythng about guns knows that one of the reasons assault rifles use less powerful cartridges than battle rifles is that they are more likely to wound, rather than kill, enemy soldiers.Designed to kill
Designers like to envisage their fundamental role as one of making the world a better place. How does the signature work of Mikhail Kalashnikov fit in to that noble mission? In 1947, Kalashnikov won a Soviet competition to design a new sub-machine gun for the Red Army, fresh from its victory in Word War II. The AK-47 went on to become the principal weapon of one side or the other in virtually every war since. It is estimated to have caused most of the 300,000 combat deaths in all the many wars of the 1990s and is still a fixture in conflicts the world over.
In a 2003 interview with The Guardian, Kalashnikov acknowledged the grisly legacy he had bestowed upon the world: "I made it to protect the motherland. And then they spread the weapon [around the world] - not because I wanted them to. Not at my choice. Then it was like a genie out of the bottle and it began to walk all on its own and in directions I did not want."
Creative Review - Designed to kill
Right. Nothign supports your conention that is was "designed to kill." Kalashnikov himself says it was designed to defend the Motherland.
Are you willing to admit that you are wrong here, as you were wrong in saying the number of guns is declining, as you were wrong in saying the number of people with guns is declining?
It's a test of your intellectual honesty.
well yeah he says so himself in the piece he posted
"I made it to protect the motherland. "
--LOL
M14 -
So if the intention of guns is to wound, and the intention of cars is to get from A to B - which item might require the strongest legislation to limit the potential damage of that use?
if you stop feeding the troll, it will go away.M14 -
So if the intention of guns is to wound, and the intention of cars is to get from A to B - which item might require the strongest legislation to limit the potential damage of that use?
The intention of poison and wasp spray is to kill. Says so right on the label. How strong is the legislation restricting these dangerous items?
if you stop feeding the troll, it will go away.M14 -
So if the intention of guns is to wound, and the intention of cars is to get from A to B - which item might require the strongest legislation to limit the potential damage of that use?
The intention of poison and wasp spray is to kill. Says so right on the label. How strong is the legislation restricting these dangerous items?
M14 -
So if the intention of guns is to wound, and the intention of cars is to get from A to B - which item might require the strongest legislation to limit the potential damage of that use?
Rabbi -
In other words, you cannot fault his thinking at all.
Let me guess - you will now starting telling us how you kicked ass on this thread.
There was no thinking to fault. Anyone who believes that guns will spontaneously fire and kill people isn't thinking.
Will you admit that you have been wrong on every assertion you continue to make on these threads?
How many children killed this week by picking up the gun their parents carelessly left out? You gun dealers have blood on your hands.
Do you really need to remove all context to make a point?
Translation: Yeah I said it so I'll deflect to something else like I always do.
Translation- I needed to remove the rest of the conversation to almost make a point that wasn't really made.
CONTEXT. Understand it. IN this case, I was specifically asking that if a gun sold at your store was used to murder someone, would you get out of the gun business.
You never did answer that one for some reason. I wonder why.
There was no thinking to fault. Anyone who believes that guns will spontaneously fire and kill people isn't thinking.
Will you admit that you have been wrong on every assertion you continue to make on these threads?
How many children killed this week by picking up the gun their parents carelessly left out? You gun dealers have blood on your hands.
How many children were killed this week by ingesting a household chemical that their parents carelessly left out?
Those supermarkets have blood on their hands!
How ridiculous is that.
