...............guns...............

[NoC_T]

Trying to assign purpose values to inanimate objects is stupid

No it's not. Or would you send a soldier into combat wielding only a toothbrush?

- humans have great skills at adapting anything they can place in their hands into a weapon, if they so desire.

Yet only one of the objects in that list requires no adaptation, the specific purpose for its existence being to kill or injure.

The argument that such as a child's skipping rope can be weaponised, is laughable. A desperate deflection that wouldn't fool a girl scout.

Let's not be ridiculous and suggest that a feather pillow is no less dangerous than a .357 Magnum, simply because someone could smother you with it. :roll:

 

[Republic Now!]

No it's not. Or would you send a soldier into combat wielding only a toothbrush?

Would you send a dentist into practice wielding only an AR-15?

What are we doing here?

Yet only one of the objects in that list requires no adaptation, the specific purpose for its existence being to kill or injure.

The knife?

The argument that such as a child's skipping rope can be weaponised, is laughable. A desperate deflection that wouldn't fool a girl scout.

I get it. You don't care about all those victimized by this weapon of destruction. You don't need to skip rope.

Let's not be ridiculous and suggest that a feather pillow is no less dangerous than a .357 Magnum, simply because someone could smother you with it. :roll:

Of course, there are things between a .357 Magnum and a pillow which you intentionally ignore.

Let me ask though, just for the sake consistency, how many people would have to die to pillows each year before we MUST outlaw them?

 

[CanadaJohn]

No it's not. Or would you send a soldier into combat wielding only a toothbrush?


Yet only one of the objects in that list requires no adaptation, the specific purpose for its existence being to kill or injure.

The argument that such as a child's skipping rope can be weaponised, is laughable. A desperate deflection that wouldn't fool a girl scout.

Let's not be ridiculous and suggest that a feather pillow is no less dangerous than a .357 Magnum, simply because someone could smother you with it. :roll:

Not ridiculous at all - focussing on the "weapon" and not the wielder of the weapon is what's ridiculous. Ever heard of a drunk or a deranged person driving a car into a crowd and killing a number of people? Ever hear of a guy using fertilizer to build a truck bomb capable of tearing down a building and killing hundreds of people? Ever hear of a group of terrorists using box cutters to hijack planes and fly them into buildings killing thousands? Did any of them use a gun in the commission of their crimes?

Your focus on the weapon and not the wielder simply allows you to ignore the serious mental health issues facing many western societies today without any attempts to deal with the issues.

 

[Republic Now!]

Not ridiculous at all - focussing on the "weapon" and not the wielder of the weapon is what's ridiculous. Ever heard of a drunk or a deranged person driving a car into a crowd and killing a number of people? Ever hear of a guy using fertilizer to build a truck bomb capable of tearing down a building and killing hundreds of people? Ever hear of a group of terrorists using box cutters to hijack planes and fly them into buildings killing thousands? Did any of them use a gun in the commission of their crimes?

Your focus on the weapon and not the wielder simply allows you to ignore the serious mental health issues facing many western societies today without any attempts to deal with the issues.

And what CAUSES those mental health issues?

Obviously a lack of background checks.

 

[NoC_T]

Would you send a dentist into practice wielding only an AR-15?

What are we doing here?

You make my point for me. It wasn't necessary, but thanks all the same.

The knife?

No surprise that the obvious resides forever somewhere in your blind spot. Your support for gun ownership necessitates as much. Say, let's arm the nation's under-5s with machine guns. They're completely safe. They're 'tooooooools'. lulz

I get it. You don't care about all those victimized by this weapon of destruction. You don't need to skip rope.

Aye. All those tragedies involving mass murder at the hands of little kids, menacingly brandishing skipping ropes, eh?

Of course, there are things between a .357 Magnum and a pillow which you intentionally ignore.

Let me ask though, just for the sake consistency, how many people would have to die to pillows each year before we MUST outlaw them?

See, this is what the pro-gun quarter have. It's all quibbling with words and semantics, as you know your arguments are, at best, spurious, when examined in the light of day. Plays on degree, as if the quantitative might be disregarded until such time as it begets the qualitative, and in-between all else is irrelevant. Weak. If you'd only say straight out that you don't care what, if any, counter-arguments there may be, you'd at least appear merely stubborn, as opposed to desperate.

 

[NoC_T]

Not ridiculous at all - focussing on the "weapon" and not the wielder of the weapon is what's ridiculous. Ever heard of a drunk or a deranged person driving a car into a crowd and killing a number of people? Ever hear of a guy using fertilizer to build a truck bomb capable of tearing down a building and killing hundreds of people? Ever hear of a group of terrorists using box cutters to hijack planes and fly them into buildings killing thousands? Did any of them use a gun in the commission of their crimes?

Your focus on the weapon and not the wielder simply allows you to ignore the serious mental health issues facing many western societies today without any attempts to deal with the issues.

Everyone who ever committed murder using a gun was clinically insane? Of course not. It's a question of opportunity, not pathology. Arm people, and the scope for gun crime increases.

 

[polgara]

And what CAUSES those mental health issues?

Obviously a lack of background checks.

Greetings, Republic Now! :2wave:

:agree: No doubt about it! It's glaringly obvious that more background checks are what is needed! :lamo:

 

[Republic Now!]

You make my point for me. It wasn't necessary, but thanks all the same.

What's your point?

No surprise that the obvious resides forever somewhere in your blind spot. Your support for gun ownership necessitates as much. Say, let's arm the nation's under-5s with machine guns. They're completely safe. They're 'tooooooools'. lulz

So knives need to be adapted to be effective weapons?

I just went with the first one I saw on the list that met the criteria. You see, if there's only one, the first I come across must be the one. This is basic deduction. Perhaps your statement was false and there are at least two objects which fit your silly description.

Aye. All those tragedies involving mass murder at the hands of little kids, menacingly brandishing skipping ropes, eh?

Oh look, a hideous murderer who ignores the reality. Newsflash, kids aren't the only ones with access to rope.

See, this is what the pro-gun quarter have. It's all quibbling with words and semantics, as you know your arguments are, at best, spurious, when examined in the light of day.

Answer the question. How many people must die before something must be banned?

Plays on degree, as if the quantitative might be disregarded until such time as it begets the qualitative, and
in-between all else is irrelevant.

Oh, aren't you a big boy. I mean, you make no sense , but you sure have a high-school level vocabulary. I'm very impressed.

Weak. If you'd only say straight out that you don't care what, if any, counter-arguments there may be, you'd at least appear merely stubborn, as opposed to desperate.

I'm trying to get your opinion. I don't need to deflect from my position, I've made it plenty clear in the past. You seem to spout nonsense because you have some trouble formulating consistent viewpoints.

Tell you what, how about instead of foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog, you state what your position is? What's the metric for which you negatively judge guns? I assumed it was number of murders committed with guns, so I ask the number required for something to be worthy of banning. If your position is just "guns are made to kill because I can't see any other use for them therefore they need to be banned because they're guns" then you're engaging in circular logic.

Or is logic semantics?

 

[NoC_T]

Celebration of buffoonery. To suggest that a lethal weapon is only lethal if it's actually used. That, left unattended, it can cause no harm.

Kerrrrist.

Sure. And a hydrogen bomb is only dangerous once it explodes. It's only a tool.

ffs

 

[Republic Now!]

Everyone who ever committed murder using a gun was clinically insane? Of course not. It's a question of opportunity, not pathology. Arm people, and the scope for gun crime increases.

I would say yes, it takes a certain level of insanity to kill another person.

 

[Republic Now!]

Celebration of buffoonery. To suggest that a lethal weapon is only lethal if it's actually used. That, left unattended, it can cause no harm.

Kerrrrist.

Sure. And a hydrogen bomb is only dangerous once it explodes. It's only a tool.

ffs

Sure. And a knife is only dangerous once it's slashed at people. It's only a tool.

ffs

 

[Republic Now!]

Greetings, Republic Now! :2wave:

:agree: No doubt about it! It's glaringly obvious that more background checks are what is needed! :lamo:

Well, did you know that murder never occurred prior to guns? There was a longstanding peace (this information is suppressed by the NRA) where nobody ever hurt each other until GUNS came along and created the opportunity.

 

[NoC_T]

And what CAUSES those mental health issues?

Obviously a lack of background checks.

Erm..no. Lack of background checks don't cause mental illness. lulz

 

[Fenton]

View attachment 67151101

​

Aren't they great ? In the hands of law abiding Americans practicing their second amendment rights that is.

 

[NoC_T]

What's your point?

That this comment by CJ is incorrect. You agree.

Trying to assign purpose values to inanimate objects is stupid - humans have great skills at adapting anything they can place in their hands into a weapon, if they so desire.

So knives need to be adapted to be effective weapons?

I just went with the first one I saw on the list that met the criteria. You see, if there's only one, the first I come across must be the one. This is basic deduction. Perhaps your statement was false and there are at least two objects which fit your silly description.

Absolutely, and every housewife who ever bought a potato knife was intent upon genocide. lulz A gun needn't be adapted at all. It's manafacture assigns it one specific purpose. Keep quibbling.

Oh look, a hideous murderer who ignores the reality. Newsflash, kids aren't the only ones with access to rope.

Answer the question. How many people must die before something must be banned?

Oh, aren't you a big boy. I mean, you make no sense , but you sure have a high-school level vocabulary. I'm very impressed.

Is it your intention that the reader become vertiginous in the midst of such wild tangents?

I'm trying to get your opinion. I don't need to deflect from my position, I've made it plenty clear in the past. You seem to spout nonsense because you have some trouble formulating consistent viewpoints.

Not that you'd notice, being insensible to the consistency you've managed to ignore.

Tell you what, how about instead of foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog, you state what your position is? What's the metric for which you negatively judge guns? I assumed it was number of murders committed with guns, so I ask the number required for something to be worthy of banning. If your position is just "guns are made to kill because I can't see any other use for them therefore they need to be banned because they're guns" then you're engaging in circular logic.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how a gun might be used for anything other than its intended purpose. I never heard of anyone using one to make sandwiches or clean windows. Maybe you have. Any good?

Or is logic semantics?

Your 'logic' demands a cut-off between function and opportunity, and an absolute certainty of misuse. You're basically grasping at straws. The position that, since not every single gun in the US will be used to kill, the killings they are responsible for are somehow negligible. Logic indeed. lulz

 

[FederalRepublic]

That may be true, but in a country that was built on the gun, that developed with the gun and that has more guns in circulation than people, I'm pretty sure nobody in America is blind to guns. You're getting to the point where half the population is legally armed to protect themselves from the other half of the population that's illegally armed. Come up with a way to disarm the criminal elements, and you might get someone to listen.

I officially take back anything I've ever said, or ever will say, against Canada...

 

[NoC_T]

I would say yes, it takes a certain level of insanity to kill another person.

Not looking good for the armed forces, is it?

 

[NoC_T]

Sure. And a knife is only dangerous once it's slashed at people. It's only a tool.

ffs

You know imitation is a form of flattery? :lol:

Remember you made this post, the next time millions of people drop dead after preparing salads.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Everyone who ever committed murder using a gun was clinically insane? Of course not. It's a question of opportunity, not pathology. Arm people, and the scope for gun crime increases.

Indeed, no more so than every owner of a gun is a criminal or murderer. It is, however, absolutely a question of pathology. If guns really are the problem, why aren't you advocating for all police departments to disarm their officers. After all, they are all armed so according to you, because of being armed, police must be more criminal than the public at large. Let's start with disarming the authorities first.

 

[NoC_T]

Well, did you know that murder never occurred prior to guns? There was a longstanding peace (this information is suppressed by the NRA) where nobody ever hurt each other until GUNS came along and created the opportunity.

You're right. Gun crime prior to the advent of guns was at an all time high.

 

[VanceMack]

Cars: Made for driving
Alcohol: Made for drinking
Hands/Feet/Fists: Made for grabbing
Hammer: Made for hammering nails
Knives: Made for cutting food
Guns: Made for shooting,

See the difference?

Sure...the thing which is made for shooting is a lot more safe than those things NOT made for shooting.

 

[FederalRepublic]

What I find a shame more than anything is that people are so close-minded that they won't even allow basic reforms like universal background checks to get passed.

Why is that a shame? How would that be an improvement?

 

[CanadaJohn]

I officially take back anything I've ever said, or ever will say, against Canada...

Feel free to slag us, or me, anytime - I'm sure we often deserve it.

 

[NoC_T]

Indeed, no more so than every owner of a gun is a criminal or murderer. It is, however, absolutely a question of pathology. If guns really are the problem, why aren't you advocating for all police departments to disarm their officers. After all, they are all armed so according to you, because of being armed, police must be more criminal than the public at large. Let's start with disarming the authorities first.

What is the rate of gun crime directly attributable to police officers?

Where do I describe the public as criminal, based upon ownership? I've only argued the opportunity for increased incidence and specific function as dictated by manafacture.

 

[polgara]

Well, did you know that murder never occurred prior to guns? There was a longstanding peace (this information is suppressed by the NRA) where nobody ever hurt each other until GUNS came along and created the opportunity.

:lamo: I wish I could give you a thousand likes on this post! :thumbs: