"The Cause Is Still Not Known"

[PoliticalChic]

The following was just reported:

"LAKEWOOD, N.J. (WABC) -- A serious crash involving two vehicles left 14 people injured, two critically, in Lakewood, New Jersey, Tuesday night.

The drivers of a van and an SUV collided at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and Pine Avenue around 7:15 p.m.

Eyewitnesses said the van was carrying workers from a nearby car rental facility.

The injured were taken to...."
14 hurt, 2 critically, when SUV, van collide in Lakewood, New Jersey | 7online.com


What got my attention was the final sentence read by the news reader:

"Investigators are looking into what caused the crash."



Now...had this been "14 Shot....."


Would the news reader have had any hesitation in assigning the cause to guns?



Seems some inanimate objects come with intentions.....

 

[Oddball]

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".....

 

[Truthmatters]

are you aware an investigation has to take place to determine the exact cause?


that happens in a gun crime too

 

[Mad Scientist]

LOL at the comments:

Ray (21148) Directed energy weapons rays used against cars,vehicles, by military.

Directed-energy weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

are you aware an investigation has to take place to determine the exact cause?


that happens in a gun crime too

".....that happens in a gun crime too"


Now, you know I always learn from your wisdom and experience....

...and, before I jot this down, I need to be sure of what your testimony is:

You've found that gun incidence is not reported with the subtext 'tsk, tsk...more tragedy due to guns!'


Is that correct?

 

[Mad Scientist]

are you aware an investigation has to take place to determine the exact cause?


that happens in a gun crime too

".....that happens in a gun crime too"

Naw, just take all the guns first! Just to be safe!

 

[Sunni Man]

Sounds like both the SUV and the van were packed full of illegals...........

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL at the comments:

Ray (21148) Directed energy weapons rays used against cars,vehicles, by military.

Directed-energy weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Luckily, I got the depleted uranium optional coating.

...and the tinted window.

 

[PixieStix]

The following was just reported:

"LAKEWOOD, N.J. (WABC) -- A serious crash involving two vehicles left 14 people injured, two critically, in Lakewood, New Jersey, Tuesday night.

The drivers of a van and an SUV collided at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and Pine Avenue around 7:15 p.m.

Eyewitnesses said the van was carrying workers from a nearby car rental facility.

The injured were taken to...."
14 hurt, 2 critically, when SUV, van collide in Lakewood, New Jersey | 7online.com


What got my attention was the final sentence read by the news reader:

"Investigators are looking into what caused the crash."



.

Ban SUV's.... then eventually all other forms of transportation

 

[PoliticalChic]

The following was just reported:

"LAKEWOOD, N.J. (WABC) -- A serious crash involving two vehicles left 14 people injured, two critically, in Lakewood, New Jersey, Tuesday night.

The drivers of a van and an SUV collided at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and Pine Avenue around 7:15 p.m.

Eyewitnesses said the van was carrying workers from a nearby car rental facility.

The injured were taken to...."
14 hurt, 2 critically, when SUV, van collide in Lakewood, New Jersey | 7online.com


What got my attention was the final sentence read by the news reader:

"Investigators are looking into what caused the crash."



.

Ban SUV's.... then eventually all other forms of transportation

Now....where did you ever get that idea???

Oh.....

"Al Gore called for eliminating the internal-combustion engine within 25 years in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance...."

Read more: Thank You, Internal-Combustion Engine, for Cleaning up the Environment : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

 

[newpolitics]

The following was just reported:

"LAKEWOOD, N.J. (WABC) -- A serious crash involving two vehicles left 14 people injured, two critically, in Lakewood, New Jersey, Tuesday night.

The drivers of a van and an SUV collided at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and Pine Avenue around 7:15 p.m.

Eyewitnesses said the van was carrying workers from a nearby car rental facility.

The injured were taken to...."
14 hurt, 2 critically, when SUV, van collide in Lakewood, New Jersey | 7online.com


What got my attention was the final sentence read by the news reader:

"Investigators are looking into what caused the crash."



Now...had this been "14 Shot....."


Would the news reader have had any hesitation in assigning the cause to guns?



Seems some inanimate objects come with intentions.....

Are you really this stupid? Amazing. Cars are meant to not crash, so when they do, the cause can't be the car itself. There has to be a reason. With guns, their purpose is to kill, so when someone is shot by a gun, there is no need to ask for a cause. It is obvious that someone pulled the fucking trigger.

 

[newpolitics]

The following was just reported:

"LAKEWOOD, N.J. (WABC) -- A serious crash involving two vehicles left 14 people injured, two critically, in Lakewood, New Jersey, Tuesday night.

The drivers of a van and an SUV collided at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and Pine Avenue around 7:15 p.m.

Eyewitnesses said the van was carrying workers from a nearby car rental facility.

The injured were taken to...."
14 hurt, 2 critically, when SUV, van collide in Lakewood, New Jersey | 7online.com


What got my attention was the final sentence read by the news reader:

"Investigators are looking into what caused the crash."



Now...had this been "14 Shot....."


Would the news reader have had any hesitation in assigning the cause to guns?



Seems some inanimate objects come with intentions.....

When some a gun fires, something went right, as this is the purpose of a gun. When a car crashes, something went wrong, and we need to figure that out. Understand, you half wit? That would explain why the reporter said that. You just need something to poke fun at.

 

[Pogo]

The following was just reported:

"LAKEWOOD, N.J. (WABC) -- A serious crash involving two vehicles left 14 people injured, two critically, in Lakewood, New Jersey, Tuesday night.

The drivers of a van and an SUV collided at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and Pine Avenue around 7:15 p.m.

Eyewitnesses said the van was carrying workers from a nearby car rental facility.

The injured were taken to...."
14 hurt, 2 critically, when SUV, van collide in Lakewood, New Jersey | 7online.com


What got my attention was the final sentence read by the news reader:

"Investigators are looking into what caused the crash."



Now...had this been "14 Shot....."


Would the news reader have had any hesitation in assigning the cause to guns?



Seems some inanimate objects come with intentions.....

Are you really this stupid? Amazing. Cars are meant to not crash, so when they do, the cause can't be the car itself. There has to be a reason. With guns, their purpose is to kill, so when someone is shot by a gun, there is no need to ask for a cause. It is obvious that someone pulled the fucking trigger.

Is that what this is-- a call to "state the obvious"? I thought it was a trick question.

The OP is apparently unfamiliar with the concept of "accident".

 

[PoliticalChic]

The following was just reported:

"LAKEWOOD, N.J. (WABC) -- A serious crash involving two vehicles left 14 people injured, two critically, in Lakewood, New Jersey, Tuesday night.

The drivers of a van and an SUV collided at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and Pine Avenue around 7:15 p.m.

Eyewitnesses said the van was carrying workers from a nearby car rental facility.

The injured were taken to...."
14 hurt, 2 critically, when SUV, van collide in Lakewood, New Jersey | 7online.com


What got my attention was the final sentence read by the news reader:

"Investigators are looking into what caused the crash."



Now...had this been "14 Shot....."


Would the news reader have had any hesitation in assigning the cause to guns?



Seems some inanimate objects come with intentions.....

Are you really this stupid? Amazing. Cars are meant to not crash, so when they do, the cause can't be the car itself. There has to be a reason. With guns, their purpose is to kill, so when someone is shot by a gun, there is no need to ask for a cause. It is obvious that someone pulled the fucking trigger.

Is that what this is-- a call to "state the obvious"? I thought it was a trick question.

The OP is apparently unfamiliar with the concept of "accident".

How ironic for you to use the phrase "unfamiliar with the concept "....

as both you and brainless fail to incorporate the concept of 'inanimate object' into you calculations....



So, let's see if I can point both Thing 1 and Thing 2 in the right direction.


Neither the car nor the gun is designed to kill.
They are tools, like the computer you used to bang out your erroneous posts.


It requires the actions of a human being, or there are no 'accidents.'


What have we learned?
It is values and character that are at fault, not chunks of iron, no matter the configurations.


If you had considered the fact that I have provided, the argument that you attempted to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.

 

[rightwinger]

The following was just reported:

"LAKEWOOD, N.J. (WABC) -- A serious crash involving two vehicles left 14 people injured, two critically, in Lakewood, New Jersey, Tuesday night.

The drivers of a van and an SUV collided at the intersection of New Hampshire Avenue and Pine Avenue around 7:15 p.m.

Eyewitnesses said the van was carrying workers from a nearby car rental facility.

The injured were taken to...."
14 hurt, 2 critically, when SUV, van collide in Lakewood, New Jersey | 7online.com


What got my attention was the final sentence read by the news reader:

"Investigators are looking into what caused the crash."



Now...had this been "14 Shot....."


Would the news reader have had any hesitation in assigning the cause to guns?



Seems some inanimate objects come with intentions.....

I used to live on New Hampshire Ave in Lakewood..

Your feeble attempt to link car accidents to gun violence fails miserably

We have spent billions of dollars and passed endless regulations to make driving safer. Millions of lives have been saved as the fatality rates of car accidents has dropped dramatically. Why can't we do the same with guns?

 

[Pogo]

Are you really this stupid? Amazing. Cars are meant to not crash, so when they do, the cause can't be the car itself. There has to be a reason. With guns, their purpose is to kill, so when someone is shot by a gun, there is no need to ask for a cause. It is obvious that someone pulled the fucking trigger.

Is that what this is-- a call to "state the obvious"? I thought it was a trick question.

The OP is apparently unfamiliar with the concept of "accident".

How ironic for you to use the phrase "unfamiliar with the concept "....

as both you and brainless fail to incorporate the concept of 'inanimate object' into you calculations....



So, let's see if I can point both Thing 1 and Thing 2 in the right direction.


Neither the car nor the gun is designed to kill.
They are tools, like the computer you used to bang out your erroneous posts.


It requires the actions of a human being, or there are no 'accidents.'


What have we learned?
It is values and character that are at fault, not chunks of iron, no matter the configurations.


If you had considered the fact that I have provided, the argument that you attempted to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.

And what if you're approaching an intersection and your brakes fail? No human caused that.

.
.
.
What have we learned?

.
.
.
.

That inserting a bunch of spaces between our lines makes for some kind of dramatic effect?
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Apparently not.

Btw your premise itself is inoperative. Of course guns are designed to kill. Ever heard the term "hunting"?
What do you suppose those hunters are doing? Taking animals for a ride?

.
.
.


If you had considered the fact of the realities of the existence that I have provided, made known, divulged and revealed upon this day, the argument that you attempted to advance would not have failed before it started.

What have we learned?

Prolly not much.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is that what this is-- a call to "state the obvious"? I thought it was a trick question.

The OP is apparently unfamiliar with the concept of "accident".

How ironic for you to use the phrase "unfamiliar with the concept "....

as both you and brainless fail to incorporate the concept of 'inanimate object' into you calculations....



So, let's see if I can point both Thing 1 and Thing 2 in the right direction.


Neither the car nor the gun is designed to kill.
They are tools, like the computer you used to bang out your erroneous posts.


It requires the actions of a human being, or there are no 'accidents.'


What have we learned?
It is values and character that are at fault, not chunks of iron, no matter the configurations.


If you had considered the fact that I have provided, the argument that you attempted to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.

And what if you're approaching an intersection and your brakes fail? No human caused that.

.
.
.
What have we learned?

.
.
.
.

That inserting a bunch of spaces between our lines makes for some kind of dramatic effect?
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Apparently not.

Btw your premise itself is inoperative. Of course guns are designed to kill. Ever heard the term "hunting"?
What do you suppose those hunters are doing? Taking animals for a ride?

.
.
.


If you had considered the fact of the realities of the existence that I have provided, made known, divulged and revealed upon this day, the argument that you attempted to advance would not have failed before it started.

What have we learned?

Prolly not much.

Between automobiles and guns....which says on the advertisement 'Designed to Kill"?


Oh.....neither?


Well, then....which must be used in that fashion?

Oh....neither?


Which are you forced to purchase or use?


Neither?


So....how about you avail yourself of the right not to purchase or use either/

I leave it up to you...it's your business.


And stay out of my business.


And, as for this: "That inserting a bunch of spaces between our lines makes for some kind of dramatic effect?"

Don't like the form of my post?


So?

 

[rightwinger]

How ironic for you to use the phrase "unfamiliar with the concept "....

as both you and brainless fail to incorporate the concept of 'inanimate object' into you calculations....



So, let's see if I can point both Thing 1 and Thing 2 in the right direction.


Neither the car nor the gun is designed to kill.
They are tools, like the computer you used to bang out your erroneous posts.


It requires the actions of a human being, or there are no 'accidents.'


What have we learned?
It is values and character that are at fault, not chunks of iron, no matter the configurations.


If you had considered the fact that I have provided, the argument that you attempted to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.

And what if you're approaching an intersection and your brakes fail? No human caused that.

.
.
.
What have we learned?

.
.
.
.

That inserting a bunch of spaces between our lines makes for some kind of dramatic effect?
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Apparently not.

Btw your premise itself is inoperative. Of course guns are designed to kill. Ever heard the term "hunting"?
What do you suppose those hunters are doing? Taking animals for a ride?

.
.
.


If you had considered the fact of the realities of the existence that I have provided, made known, divulged and revealed upon this day, the argument that you attempted to advance would not have failed before it started.

What have we learned?

Prolly not much.

Between automobiles and guns....which says on the advertisement 'Designed to Kill"?


Oh.....neither?


Well, then....which must be used in that fashion?

Oh....neither?


Which are you forced to purchase or use?


Neither?


So....how about you avail yourself of the right not to purchase or use either/

I leave it up to you...it's your business.


And stay out of my business.


And, as for this: "That inserting a bunch of spaces between our lines makes for some kind of dramatic effect?"

Don't like the form of my post?


So?

1. Guns do not kill people





2. People kill people



3. Cars kill more people than guns



4. Henry Ford said: Life is a series of experiences, each of which makes us bigger, even though it is hard to realize this. For the world was built to develop character, and we must learn that the setbacks and griefs which we endure help us in our marching onward.”




5. More people die from disease than from guns. Therefore you should ban all disease before you try to ban guns



6. The problem is not guns, the problem is death Ban death NOT GUNS

 

[Pogo]

How ironic for you to use the phrase "unfamiliar with the concept "....

as both you and brainless fail to incorporate the concept of 'inanimate object' into you calculations....



So, let's see if I can point both Thing 1 and Thing 2 in the right direction.


Neither the car nor the gun is designed to kill.
They are tools, like the computer you used to bang out your erroneous posts.


It requires the actions of a human being, or there are no 'accidents.'


What have we learned?
It is values and character that are at fault, not chunks of iron, no matter the configurations.


If you had considered the fact that I have provided, the argument that you attempted to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.

And what if you're approaching an intersection and your brakes fail? No human caused that.

.
.
.
What have we learned?

.
.
.
.

That inserting a bunch of spaces between our lines makes for some kind of dramatic effect?
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Apparently not.

Btw your premise itself is inoperative. Of course guns are designed to kill. Ever heard the term "hunting"?
What do you suppose those hunters are doing? Taking animals for a ride?

.
.
.


If you had considered the fact of the realities of the existence that I have provided, made known, divulged and revealed upon this day, the argument that you attempted to advance would not have failed before it started.

What have we learned?

Prolly not much.

Between automobiles and guns....which says on the advertisement 'Designed to Kill"?


Oh.....neither?


Well, then....which must be used in that fashion?

Oh....neither?


Which are you forced to purchase or use?


Neither?


So....how about you avail yourself of the right not to purchase or use either/

I leave it up to you...it's your business.


And stay out of my business.


And, as for this: "That inserting a bunch of spaces between our lines makes for some kind of dramatic effect?"

Don't like the form of my post?


So?

We're actually reducing the debate all the way to how it's advertised?? Really?

Ever seen cigarettes advertised on the basis that they'll give you a quick path to cancer?
Why not?
Oh. My. God. Is it possible there's a credibility gap between advertising and reality? Who knew?

.
.
What have we learned?

Even less than I thought.

And stay out of my business.

How the fuck am I "in your business"??? You opened a thread, then you wanna get all snippy when somebody replies?? Wtf is the thread for then?
.
.
.
.
.

Also I never said I "don't like" the style of endless spaces.
.
.
.
What I'm doing is mocking it. Satire exaggerates how silly the original is.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hope you
.
.
.
"like" it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And what if you're approaching an intersection and your brakes fail? No human caused that.

.
.
.
What have we learned?

.
.
.
.

That inserting a bunch of spaces between our lines makes for some kind of dramatic effect?
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Apparently not.

Btw your premise itself is inoperative. Of course guns are designed to kill. Ever heard the term "hunting"?
What do you suppose those hunters are doing? Taking animals for a ride?

.
.
.


If you had considered the fact of the realities of the existence that I have provided, made known, divulged and revealed upon this day, the argument that you attempted to advance would not have failed before it started.

What have we learned?

Prolly not much.

Between automobiles and guns....which says on the advertisement 'Designed to Kill"?


Oh.....neither?


Well, then....which must be used in that fashion?

Oh....neither?


Which are you forced to purchase or use?


Neither?


So....how about you avail yourself of the right not to purchase or use either/

I leave it up to you...it's your business.


And stay out of my business.


And, as for this: "That inserting a bunch of spaces between our lines makes for some kind of dramatic effect?"

Don't like the form of my post?


So?

We're actually reducing the debate all the way to how it's advertised?? Really?

Ever seen cigarettes advertised on the basis that they'll give you a quick path to cancer?
Why not?
Oh. My. God. Is it possible there's a credibility gap between advertising and reality? Who knew?

.
.
What have we learned?

Even less than I thought.

And stay out of my business.

How the fuck am I "in your business"??? You opened a thread, then you wanna get all snippy when somebody replies?? Wtf is the thread for then?
.
.
.
.
.

Also I never said I "don't like" the style of endless spaces.
.
.
.
What I'm doing is mocking it. Satire exaggerates how silly the original is.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hope you
.
.
.
"like" it.

"What I'm doing is mocking it. Satire exaggerates how silly the original is."

You're really not.

The effort requires far more talent than you show, in order to move from annoying to boring to mocking.
You're stuck at half past annoying.



And...you have nothing else of substance to add?
That's it?


Have I given you enough time so you don't feel entirely worthless?
Good.