-->
@Sidewalker
😔😔😔
Guns don't kill people, people kill people
Posts
Total:
312
-->
@Greyparrot
😔😔😔
I guess it would be more fun if we get some popcord, sith back, ring a bell, and then watch all the gun people salivate, howl at the moon, and bark at mirrors, that's a hoot.
-->
@Sidewalker
Sure, as long as it's done at a gun free venue so those pesky victims don't interfere.
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure, as long as it's done at a gun free venue so those pesky victims don't interfere.
That's the problem, the mere mention of a "gun free venue" makes gun people cry like little bitches.
-->
@Sidewalker
How is that a problem?
People will always kill people, but guns make the job easier.
-->
@zedvictor4
Guns make it easier to defend yourself.
When someone is breaking into your house, it is better to have a gun than wait for 10 minutes for police to arrive.
When you are being attacked by wild dog or a bear, there is no weapon that can replace a gun.
Even if we take away guns, there are still knives, bombs and cars that can be used by crazy murderer. However, the good citizen is left defenseless.
Ban guns = deny the good citizens of self-defense.
-->
@Best.Korea
Heard a neat term today.
Performative outrage.
-->
@Greyparrot
I dont know what that means, but if its something that makes left look bad, then I agree with it.
-->
@Best.Korea
It's when you act sufficiently enough to appear concerned that people won't question you when you do nothing about it.
-->
@Best.Korea
None of those scenarios you refer to are major problems here in the U.K.
Why would that be?
OK. So we don't have Bears.
-->
@b9_ntt
You are overgeneralizing our position.
Actually, I'm not.
Everyone has the right to bear "arms."
It is not a "right" if it's subject to exogenous limitations. That of which you speak is merely a "privilege" extended by government.
Does everyone have a right bear any weapon whatsoever? If the answer is no, then you have to decide where to draw the line between arms which are permitted and those which are not permitted.
There should be no line drawn. That's the point. The weapon is merely an inanimate object that is used by someone.
A nuclear weapon? No. A tank? No. Where then?
People already own and possess nuclear weapons and tanks. Some of them are referred to as members of government. And the irony is that governments have a higher body count than anyone. The U.S. for example detonated two atomic bombs on civilian populations, among which a number of U.S. COMBATANTS WERE PRESENT. (Yes, that's right--the U.S. government, which shouldn't come as a surprise, murdered not only about a quarter-million people, but also U.S. combatants over whom it presided.) And you think this organization should dictate, let alone regulate which arms one can bear?
They allow maniacs to kill many people in a short period of time.
Both you and RationalMadman have made reference to the speed in which a firearm can be used to murder individuals. Presumably because the more efficiently people are supposedly murdered, the worse the circumstances surrounding their hypothetical deaths become? Why does this matter? If I were so inclined, I could kill 10 people right now with a box cutter before I, presumably, get caught. Average police response time is about seven minutes, so that would give me 42 seconds to kill 10 individuals. If I use one of my firearms, I could clear a better time, or target more individuals, but that doesn't change anything. I'd still be murdering people.
They should be outlawed outside the military. Law abiding citizens could still arm themselves with non-automatic weapons. Why is that such a terrible idea?
You haven't justified the reason it's a good idea. What have law-abiding citizens done that they warrant a limitation to their "right to bear arms"? Why are they accountable for the actions of criminals?
So Athias thinks we should all have nuclear bombs. He's surely a sensible fellow.
School nukings, wouldn't that be something?
And the irony is that governments have a higher body count than anyone.
Just for fun.
-->
@Double_R
In any situation where a death would not have occurred if not for the presence of a gun, how do the decisions of those involved grossly supercede the presence of the gun?
The problem with this question is that it presumed a death would not have a occurred if not for the presence of a gun. One does not need a gun to kill; it's as simple as that. Don't tell me that you maintain the position that a gun makes one kill.
No.Is that enough clarification for you to address the question?
Your clarification should have allowed you to glean my response. Since you've conceded that the bomb neither armed nor detonated on its own, then YOU ARE ACCOUNTABLE for the lives you've taken. I'm not going to place blame on the bomb, which was merely a means.
That's irrelevant to what we're talking about.
No, it's not. One of the leading causes of death, at least here in the United States, are car accidents. You asserted that a driver's license specifically addresses the car as a factor in any car accident. So I ask once again: how many car accidents involve LICENSED DRIVERS?
You asked me if we blame the car in auto accidents, I pointed out that we do in fact recognize the role an automobile plays in car accident deaths.
No, you attempted to assert how the acquisition of a license addresses the role a car plays in auto-accidents as a built-in mechanism. This clearly makes no sense since it is the individual who's acquiring the license being tested--a test so lax, that even a 15 year-old can pass easily.
Our attempt to minimize this includes requiring licenses before we permit someone to get behind the wheel.
Which has more to do with the individual than the car.
I didn't "create" the scenario.
Yes, you did.
This actually does happen in real life
Irrelevant. I'm not disputing "real life" inspiration.
5 year olds getting stabbed or choked to death by another 5 year old doesn't.
Yes it does. Maybe not specifically two five year-olds (I would have to check,) but there have been children who choked or stabbed other children.
Because killing someone else with a knife, bare hands, or pretty much any other weapon takes effort and intent.
Not necessarily.
With a gun all it takes is carelessness.
What about Lionel Tate? He killed a six year-old girl with whom he was playing. He was trying out wrestling moves which resulted in brutally battering the young girl, subsequently leaving the girl dead. Was that intentional or careless? Do we ban or prohibit the WWE, NXT, or AEW?
That's why we treat these things differently, or at least we would in any other situation, except when it's a gun.
You treat them differently because the basis of your divisions are essentially arbitrary. They're not based in anything logical or consistent.
-->
@badger
I have very clearly answered your question.
No, you haven't. But that's fine. I'm not particularly interested in engaging this exchange beyond this point.
So Athias thinks we should all have nuclear bombs.
Yep, that's clearly what I stated.
Why don't you actually read your reference?
You can be as non-responsive as you intend; after all, that is your prerogative. But don't expect me to extend a courtesy to you that you have refused to extend to me. Have a nice day, sir.
-->
@Athias
No, you haven't. But that's fine. I'm not particularly interested in engaging this exchange beyond this point.
Yes I have. You asked why you shouldn't be allowed have weapons of mass destruction, I gave a very clear and sensible reason why not. You were just too busy about your all caps'ing and bolding to read it and understand it.
Because people being allowed to own weapons of mass destruction means their use. No matter how you plan or promise to use them, you can make no assurances about the next guy.
Your belligerent style of writing matters not a fuck alongside that reality.
-->
@badger
Yes I have.
No, you haven't. Not comprehensively, at least.
You asked why you shouldn't be allowed have weapons of mass destruction
I did, did I? Quote me. (You don't actually have to, because I know I didn't "ask.")
I gave a very clear and sensible reason why not.
No, you didn't. Nor was it in response to the question I posed.
You were just too busy about your all caps'ing and bolding to read it and understand it.
The case in which I submit my words have no bearing on the subject over which we dispute.
Because people being allowed to own weapons of mass destruction means their use. No matter how you plan or promise to use them, you can make no assurances about the next guy.
Once again this hearkens back to your sense of "trust." As I've already informed you, one's capacity to possess, own, and operate a firearm is not contingent on your "trust."
Your belligerent style of writing matters not a fuck alongside that reality.
Belligerent? I'm not the one cursing. I do not use CAPS or bold for "belligerence"; I use them for EMPHASIS. I bear no interest in expressing any type of emotion as it concerns subjects like this one, so it would make little sense for me to engage "belligerence." Perhaps, you're projecting?
Anyway, I've entertained this long enough. Respond all you want, but I will not respond back. Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
-->
@Athias
What's funny is that an engineered virus killed more people than all the nuclear bombs and guns in the last century, But we can skip over THOSE controls....
As I've already informed you, one's capacity to possess, own, and operate a firearm is not contingent on your "trust."
Yes it is, you spacecadet. Is that you think you inhabit a different planet altogether to the rest of us?
If only. No, your cohorts are blowing away schoolchildren on the regular.
-->
@Greyparrot
What's funny is that an engineered virus killed more people than all the nuclear bombs and guns in the last century, But we can skip over THOSE controls....
Well stated.
This man would call himself a true Christian and rails often against Luciferians. The American school shootings rival the Catholic abuses for sure. Perpetuated by your idiotic and evil policy.
Clown.
one's capacity to possess, own, and operate a firearm is not contingent on your "trust."
Here we go again explaining, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the thousandth time....
Or we could just sit still when the execution squads go door to door because of "trust."
You're too fat to be a devil on his shoulder, GP.
unblock me, I miss you.
Oh pulease, do gun people actually think about what they say or is it all just the NRA's Pavlovian trained dog replies?.
First, I'm not a member of the NRA. Second, are you likening me to a dog?
A firearm is a single purpose tool,
No it isn't.
and that tool is designed to do one and only one thing, kill,
It's actually designed to discharge projectiles known as bullets. Whether these bullet cause fatal injury is primarily dependent on the actions of the user.
calling it the "ordinary civilian use of firearms" is a lame intellectual dodge of the issue, nothing but a distraction.
So, is it your position that ALL USE of firearms is CRIMINAL USE? If so, explain.
Do you seriously believe it shouldn't matter how such a tool is used?
Yes. I could kill you with a hammer; a knife; a pen; box cutter; a bat; even a pillow. If capacity to be used in fatal injury must dictate access, then why not ban the aforementioned?
Generally speaking, it is unlawful to kill people,
Why does that not dictate accountability as opposed to holding everyone accountable, lawful use or not?
and that's the only thing a firearm does
That's not the only thing.
you really can't connect the dots as to why the vast number of illegal deaths merits consideration?
Why does the "vast number" of illegal deaths warrant penalizing LAWFUL USE? You're not answering my question: why does ordinary civilian use of firearms MERIT PENALTY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS?
I'm thinking that trumps the rights of the hobbyist who loses his right to target practice, or hunt,
Oh? So there is another purpose when using firearms?
or whatever legal use that the gun culture is saying is worth so many thousands of lives.
And these hobbyists are setting out in droves killing thousands of people? Care to explain how you've reached this conclusion (some empirical data would be nice, as well.)
The fact is, the real "ordinary civilian use of firearms", the reason people buy them, is they want to have the ability to kill someone,
And I presume you've spoken to every individual who has purchased a firearm about their intentions with owning, possessing, and operating said firearm? I have firearms. Do I want to kill? And keep in mind, you know better than I do what I want.
-->
@Greyparrot
Here we go again explaining, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the thousandth time....
The concept of private property is lost on fascists.
Or we could just sit still when the execution squads go door to door because of "trust."
Haha! Well said.
-->
@Sidewalker
Post #176 is in response to your statements.
-->
@Athias
With a gun all it takes is carelessness.What about Lionel Tate? He killed a six year-old girl with whom he was playing. He was trying out wrestling moves which resulted in brutally battering the young girl, subsequently leaving the girl dead. Was that intentional or careless? Do we ban or prohibit the WWE, NXT, or AEW?
👏🏻 👍🏻
-->
@Athias
It is not a "right" if it's subject to exogenous limitations. When the right was established there were no exogenous limitations attached to it. It was only later that people with no regard for the constitution or peoples rights were they added. There were no restrictions on owning a firearm. It "WAS" a right that was taken away.