Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

James Harrison says KC tragedy not a gun problem


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#16 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:38 PM

that's historically, tactically and fundamentally wrong and i know you aren't actually stupid enough to believe it.

no single thing has shaped the modern world more than the technological advancement of weaponry.



Is a gun easier to kill with, yes. But the problems don't lie with the gun. The problem exists in the user. I'm not saying a rock is a better weapon than a gun, yes that would be stupid, and I am not. I'm saying he could of carried out the same actions without the use of a gun.

If you want to call me stupid just call me stupid or batsh*t crazy as you prefer. This isn't an argument about guns is it?

#17 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,559 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:41 PM

The problem does lie with the Nuclear Weapon either. Hell, nuclear fission has been occurring for billions of years.

#18 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:43 PM

too bad somebody didn't have a hand full of dryer lint... they could've fought him off.



Creative use of dryer lint can be deadly also :cool:

#19 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:51 PM

Is a gun easier to kill with, yes. But the problems don't lie with the gun. The problem exists in the user. I'm not saying a rock is a better weapon than a gun, yes that would be stupid, and I am not. I'm saying he could of carried out the same actions without the use of a gun.

If you want to call me stupid just call me stupid or batsh*t crazy as you prefer. This isn't an argument about guns is it?


he could've but the woman he was trying to kill would have had a significant better chance at survival both due to the literal mechanics of death and also the amount of conviction it takes to kill someone by smashing them repeatedly with a gory rock vs retracting your index finger. That's the point. Guns may not increase violent occurances but they certainly increase the subsequent death toll.

I'm honestly not a big gun-control guy, but when you guys spin in circles trying to act like there isn't actually an issue, you end up looking pretty silly.

#20 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,876 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:55 PM

have you ever choked a mufugger with dryer lint?

don't knock it until you've done it...

#21 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:59 PM

he could've but the woman he was trying to kill would have had a significant better chance at survival both due to the literal mechanics of death and also the amount of conviction it takes to kill someone by smashing them repeatedly with a gory rock vs retracting your index finger. That's the point. Guns may not increase violent occurances but they certainly increase the subsequent death toll.

I'm honestly not a big gun-control guy, but when you guys spin in circles trying to act like there isn't actually an issue, you end up looking pretty silly.



He could physically overpower HER and take her life and find a way to kill himself. What is silly about that?

Once again, there are more efficient weapons but that has nothing to do with a gun. Who is silly?

#22 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,876 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:03 PM

I'm actually with beans, to an extent...

There are a lot of issues with guns in our country, but the problem is that there is no way to correct those issues... We can only try to better control them... But when you do that, it is a slippery slope...

#23 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:08 PM

I'm actually with beans, to an extent...

There are a lot of issues with guns in our country, but the problem is that there is no way to correct those issues... We can only try to better control them... But when you do that, it is a slippery slope...



Yeah, but then swords are next. My contention is that you have to change the mind to fix our problems not the weapon. Next its no weapons at all. Then no Kung Fu.

And some of you think I'm a hippie or something

#24 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,876 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:12 PM

but you can't fix the people problem... people are dumbfugs...

#25 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,559 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:15 PM

Number of times in the Tinderbox people have suggested they want to ban all guns: 0
Number of times people in the Tinderbox have attacked the idea of banning all guns: 80128320918319082038974870981423

#26 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,532 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:17 PM

Assault gun ban renewal HAS been mentioned.

Number of liberals that understand the difference between cosmetic gun changes that make no difference in the world regarding function? a few

But hard for the administration to really get back on board with the renewal when they've shown a greater penchant to providing Mexican drug cartels with "assault weapons" than their own citizens.

#27 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,876 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:18 PM

Number of times in the Tinderbox people have suggested they want to ban all guns: 0
Number of times people in the Tinderbox have attacked the idea of banning all guns: 80128320918319082038974870981423


I think it is part of the slippery slope mentality though...

We already have controls in place to curb gun violence... If you add more, where does it end...

I'm not saying we couldn't and shouldn't do more but, again, where do you define and end-point...

It is a losing battle on either side...

#28 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,559 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:22 PM

I think it is part of the slippery slope mentality though...

We already have controls in place to curb gun violence... If you add more, where does it end...

I'm not saying we couldn't and shouldn't do more but, again, where do you define and end-point...

It is a losing battle on either side...


There's a reason the "Slippery Slope" is considered a logical fallacy.

#29 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,911 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:23 PM

no difference between rocks and guns? do you read what you post?


The intent of the individual is all that matters. Its not like the gun itself magically convinces you to shoot or kill someone. Any weapon - a gun, a rock, your hands, etc, are no more than an extension of yourself.

#30 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:24 PM

The intent of the individual is all that matters. Its not like the gun itself magically convinces you to shoot or kill someone. Any weapon - a gun, a rock, your hands, etc, are no more than an extension of yourself.


stop trying to redefine my argument to fit your point please.

i'm not arguing intent, i'm arguing capability.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com