106 replies to this topic

[Darth Biscuit]

yeah the analogy is totally appropriate when the argument is that we shouldn't distinguish between the killing power of different things because "people kill people" or whatever, and i'm not at all surprised that it wasn't debated any further than calling it "dumb" and forgetting it

lol

This from the master of the disappearing act when things are going his way...


I didn't debate it with Del because there is no reason. He and I are diametrically opposed on this issue.

I think his Nth degree analogy was silly... enough said.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

master of disappearing acts? i thought i always had to have the last word no matter what!

(you're projecting again)

I didn't debate it with Del because there is no reason. He and I are diametrically opposed on this issue.

I think his Nth degree analogy was silly... enough said.

"i think it's dumb, but don't ask me why!"

[bramizzle]

While I'm not all for gun control I think it would be interesting if the only guns we could use were muskets. It'll never happen but just think about how awesome random people in gun battles would look lined up revolutionary war style.

[Darth Biscuit]

No I have to give you credit on that count, you haven't done the last word thing much lately... Actually just the opposite...

It's good to know you do pay attention to what I say too, even though you tend to ignore things until it's convenient...

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

sort of like how you continue to ignore delhommey after you called his post "dumb" without even attempting to justify the insult

i gave him a response since it was clear that you were going to be MIA and then, huh, all of a sudden now you're posting again. it's almost as if you're far more concerned with me than you are with backing up you're "nuh uh ur dumb and silly" posts

[Darth Biscuit]

Not concerned with backing anything I said up, don't need to.

Who's the one who came in the thread just to point out something I said? Yeah, that would be you.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

???

i replied to delhommey, on topic

in fact i never said anything to you at all

also this:

Not concerned with backing anything I said up, don't need to.

is par for the course. don't be surprised when people don't accept "lol ur dumb" as an argument. i mean, you can call someone dumb if you have the means to back it up. i'll call you a fuging retard all day as i post peer-reviewed article after peer-reviewed article refuting your points. but just drop the "lol ur dumb and silly and no im not telling why"

[MadHatter]

Then youre making an irrelevant and/or pointless argument...no offense of course. There are a ton of things out there that have the capability to kill...most of which arent even designed to do that. So are we talking about accidents now? If so, then we should hold tall roof-tops, cars, falling pianos, etc, just as accountable. A gun will not kill unless someone is operating it with the intent to kill. With that being said...you can't ignore intention, because intention is everything.

Holy poo.....I agree 100% with what you say.

[cookinwithgas]

Holy poo. We ALREADY KNOW the person has intention. The problem has nothing to do with that.

Crimes, as you all know from watching Columbo, require two things, motive and opportunity.

Motive is a given, even if it's based in insanity/anger of the moment.

The difference is that a handgun allows immediate, simple opportunity to kill someone.

A rock is not a simple thing to use to kill someone. It requires close interaction with the victim, it requires brutal application of force, and it also does less damage per strike, so the chances of the victim surviving are much greater. This guys mom may have been willing to jump in between Javon and his GF when he only had a rock. A gun, that's probably not going to happen.

Also, it would have been a bit hard for the guy to kill himself with it later.

I agree that new laws would probably not have helped this situation. And of course, no one else here does. That goes back to the same tired idea that for some reason, people who favor more gun control laws are against gun ownership, which is, for the vast majority of people interested in gun control, untrue.

The problem is that whenever someone sticks their head out on the line to attempt to honestly and transparently discuss the idea of freedom of gun ownership vs. people getting killed, they are immediately labeled sniveling whining babies.

We DO have a big problem with gun violence in the country, and no one seems to want to discuss it in an adult manner, preferring to post cute cartoons about the Second Amendment (or at least just the part about bearing arms, leaving out the militia thing) instead.

[rippadonn]

I'd like to know the percentage of guns that have been used to kill people as appossed to guns that exist that haven't been used to harm human beings.

I don't have that data but I'd guess that 80% or more haven't been fired at a person. So why do we need more regulation for things only a few people abuse? I don't see the point. Wouldn't it be more prudent to cure the problem instead of treating a symptom?

Your talking about changing laws for a very small percentage of offenders. I don't own a fire arm by choice but I'm not going to force that choice on others who are mostly responsible people.

[Delhommey]

lol

This from the master of the disappearing act when things are going his way...


I didn't debate it with Del because there is no reason. He and I are diametrically opposed on this issue.

I think his Nth degree analogy was silly... enough said.

You didn't debate it because the logic was actually pretty sound.

[rippadonn]

I've taken an aluminum bat as well as a broomstick to the head (explains a lot) and wouldn't choose a rock over the two. A grown man bashing your head in with a brick or large stone can definately kill you. To think that it can't is foolish.

[Delhommey]

I'd like to know the percentage of guns that have been used to kill people as appossed to guns that exist that haven't been used to harm human beings.

I don't have that data but I'd guess that 80% or more haven't been fired at a person. So why do we need more regulation for things only a few people abuse? I don't see the point. Wouldn't it be more prudent to cure the problem instead of treating a symptom?

Your talking about changing laws for a very small percentage of offenders. I don't own a fire arm by choice but I'm not going to force that choice on others who are mostly responsible people.

Atomic fission is used throughout the world to power millions of homes, schools, and places of worship. Only two atomic weapons have EVER been used in attacks against people.

Why regulate?!!!

[Darth Biscuit]

You didn't debate it because the logic was actually pretty sound.

Nope.

[rodeo]

I've taken an aluminum bat as well as a broomstick to the head (explains a lot) and wouldn't choose a rock over the two. A grown man bashing your head in with a brick or large stone can definately kill you. To think that it can't is foolish.

Have you taken a gunshot to the head?