- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Would have been so much easier with a gun.
How so? Starting a fire is easier and cheaper. It requires almost no skill.
Neither does a shotgun. Spray and pray, they always say!
A gun in France requires a permit. Not so for a box of matches.
Shotguns can kill easier. You are proving this is too difficult for you for some strange reason. LMAO!
Obviously, you have difficulty accepting the fact that a woman, with a match killed 8 and wounded 37. No gun was used.
And how many people are murdered annually with matches vs guns? The response needs to be proportionate with the scale of abuse of a tool.
Obviously, you have difficulty accepting the fact that a woman, with a match killed 8 and wounded 37. No gun was used.
About 3,500 a year.
Then you have your answer as to why a more serious response to gun violence is required.
I already know why: so the communists can excercise more control over the citizenry.
Then you have your answer as to why a more serious response to gun violence is required.
I already know why: so the communists can excercise more control over the citizenry.
Hm. So in your mind, Joe Nobody will one day spring from his Lazy Boy in a shower of empty beer cans to save us all from the Reds and the tyranny of a government that can kill him from anywhere in the world.
Would have been so much easier with a gun.
The fascists have you brainwashed...…...and the fact that you don't know it is music to our eyes! LMAO!
Actually, I'm pointing out that one doesn't need to use a gun to kill and injur a large amount of people.
No guns and no brains needed. See why we don't need all these guns in america, we can just burn out the people we don't like. By the way neither the matches or the fire killed anyone by your thinking. Just like the electric chair doesn't kill people.
The fascists confiscated guns, too. So...lol!