I guess because I use my gun for home protection and only that, the same can't be said for a nuke, you can't nuke an individual that is going to cause harm to you, in doing that you will always destroy innocent people. ALso nukes warning shots are not for self defense, they are to see if it works. TOtally different than a gun shooting warning shots.
Nukes are precisely for home protection, just that the home in question is the nation. Dan's point about difference of scale, but not of kind stands here, though the point about nukes always killing innocents is fair enough.
But nuke warning shots (by definition of "warning") are absolutely for self-defence. The entire Cold War was perpetuated by exactly that well-accepted "balance of power" concept. It's not just to test that they work, it's to show off tht they work.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I guess because I use my gun for home protection and only that, the same can't be said for a nuke, you can't nuke an individual that is going to cause harm to you, in doing that you will always destroy innocent people. ALso nukes warning shots are not for self defense, they are to see if it works. TOtally different than a gun shooting warning shots.
Nukes are precisely for home protection, just that the home in question is the nation. Dan's point about difference of scale, but not of kind stands here, though the point about nukes always killing innocents is fair enough.
But nuke warning shots (by definition of "warning") are absolutely for self-defence. The entire Cold War was perpetuated by exactly that well-accepted "balance of power" concept.
A gun used for home protection is only targeting the person entering YOUR HOUSE, and can't go hunt someone down in THEIR house and shoot them, So logically a Nuke is not home protection as we are not going to attack someone entering our HOME with a nuke as that would kill our people. So when you use that nuke on another country you will, no matter what kill innocents. Using a gun for home protection is not targeting innocent people, it is targeting a criminal entering your home. (yes i know accidents have happend, but you get my point)
Ever hear of tactical nukes? Fireable from artillery among other things to deliver a small nuclear charge for battlefield purposes.
The difference is only in degree. Both are weapons, made solely to kill, but both can be used for target practice or just general threatening.
The point is, you dont really have a principle argument here. You just think guns are less serious than nukes, which i would agree with on a 1 to 1 basis (a nuke is lots deadlier than a gun). But guns kill and have killed an enormously larger amount of people and are much more frequently in use. So which is really more dangerous? the big weapon that's never used, or the smaller ones that are put to effect daily?
Peace
Dan
Guns are not made solely to kill, some people use them to kill, other to protect themselves, others are hobbies, others to hunt.
Oh right I forgot that some people use them to bake cakes.
a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.[/size
As much as I now have no care to use a gun or have a gun in my home I disagree with this. I at one time back in the military was a pretty good shot on my college rifleteam. It was just as much a challenge to hit the bullseye as it was to get a turkey in bowling (3 strikes in a row) or dunking a basketball (which I could do at one time ). It was great fun for me shooting at the rifle range honing in my skills as a rifleman. Many people today shoot their rifles/pistols solely as getting the best scores at a range rather than to kill people. If I'm not mistaken rifles and pistols are used as an Olympic event, something back then I would have loved to participate in that competition.
Peace
disagree all you want... the invention of the gun was primarily for killing.... the fact we now use them for sport is by the by... they were invented to kill other humans... undeniable fact.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.[/size
As much as I now have no care to use a gun or have a gun in my home I disagree with this. I at one time back in the military was a pretty good shot on my college rifleteam. It was just as much a challenge to hit the bullseye as it was to get a turkey in bowling (3 strikes in a row) or dunking a basketball (which I could do at one time ). It was great fun for me shooting at the rifle range honing in my skills as a rifleman. Many people today shoot their rifles/pistols solely as getting the best scores at a range rather than to kill people. If I'm not mistaken rifles and pistols are used as an Olympic event, something back then I would have loved to participate in that competition.
Peace
disagree all you want... the invention of the gun was primarily for killing.... the fact we now use them for sport is by the by... they were invented to kill other humans... undeniable fact.
Well, you didn't speak of the invention of the gun you spoke of the design of the gun. They ARE guns designed for target shooting (quite expensive BTW) and yes even those guns can kill too.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
a gun was designed for the sole purpose of killing. thats undeniable.[/size
As much as I now have no care to use a gun or have a gun in my home I disagree with this. I at one time back in the military was a pretty good shot on my college rifleteam. It was just as much a challenge to hit the bullseye as it was to get a turkey in bowling (3 strikes in a row) or dunking a basketball (which I could do at one time ). It was great fun for me shooting at the rifle range honing in my skills as a rifleman. Many people today shoot their rifles/pistols solely as getting the best scores at a range rather than to kill people. If I'm not mistaken rifles and pistols are used as an Olympic event, something back then I would have loved to participate in that competition.
Peace
disagree all you want... the invention of the gun was primarily for killing.... the fact we now use them for sport is by the by... they were invented to kill other humans... undeniable fact.
Well, you didn't speak of the invention of the gun you spoke of the design of the gun. They ARE guns designed for target shooting (quite expensive BTW) and yes even those guns can kill too.
Peace
semantics...
i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.
So whats your stance on knives??? They were originall designed to kill, (small spear) Are you going to discredit knives because somepeople use them to kill and others to cut things and other secondary uses???
i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.
So whats your stance on knives??? They were originall designed to kill, (small spear) Are you going to discredit knives because somepeople use them to kill and others to cut things and other secondary uses???
Knives were designed to kill animals and to cut food. Hunter gatherers used spears and knives as survival tools. And you cannot commit a massacre with a knife unless you're Zorro, or a ninja.
i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.
So whats your stance on knives??? They were originall designed to kill, (small spear) Are you going to discredit knives because somepeople use them to kill and others to cut things and other secondary uses???
actually knives were designed to be multi-functional... kill animals for food, not humans... big difference... cut meat for eating, sharpening wooden hunting tools, cleaning animal hides, etc etc ... but they were not PRIMARILY designed to kill another human.
the point is, as many others have made, that this nutjob killed 6 people using a gun in less than 1 minute... nobody and i mean nobody with a knife could do that... this guy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm had a Samurai sword in a busy church and he could only injure a lot of people... which is horrific really... but had he had access to a legally acquired handgun he would have killed many many people i'm sure.
Post edited by dunkman on
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.
So whats your stance on knives??? They were originall designed to kill, (small spear) Are you going to discredit knives because somepeople use them to kill and others to cut things and other secondary uses???
Knives were designed to kill animals and to cut food. Hunter gatherers used spears and knives as survival tools. And you cannot commit a massacre with a knife unless you're Zorro, or a ninja.
If I were a ninja, I'd sneak into your brain and make you less stubborn.
i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.
So whats your stance on knives??? They were originall designed to kill, (small spear) Are you going to discredit knives because somepeople use them to kill and others to cut things and other secondary uses???
actually knives were designed to be multi-functional... kill animals for food, not humans... big difference... cut meat for eating, sharping wooden hunting tools, cleaning animal hides, etc etc ... but they were not PRIMARILY designed to kill another human.
the point is, as many others have made, that this nutjob killed 6 people using a gun in less than 1 minute... nobody and i mean nobody with a knife could do that... this guy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm had a Samurai sword in a busy church and he could only injure a lot of people... which is horrific really... but had he had access to a legally acquired handgun he would have killed many many people i'm sure.
Now you've changed you stance from "designed to kill" to "designed to kill humans". Knives were most certinly made to kill. Animals as well as they used them during battle with other tribes.
Knives were designed to kill animals and to cut food. Hunter gatherers used spears and knives as survival tools. And you cannot commit a massacre with a knife unless you're Zorro, or a ninja.
It's rare, but China has experienced several cases of mentally unstable people entering schools and stabbing multiple people and children, correct?
Anyway, the best we can hope for is that there are new regulations and exams required for obtaining a handgun. They are not going away, but maybe we can make sure that people with mental conditions are weeded out.
actually knives were designed to be multi-functional... kill animals for food, not humans... big difference... cut meat for eating, sharpening wooden hunting tools, cleaning animal hides, etc etc ... but they were not PRIMARILY designed to kill another human.
the point is, as many others have made, that this nutjob killed 6 people using a gun in less than 1 minute... nobody and i mean nobody with a knife could do that... this guy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm had a Samurai sword in a busy church and he could only injure a lot of people... which is horrific really... but had he had access to a legally acquired handgun he would have killed many many people i'm sure.
Knives were designed to kill animals and to cut food. Hunter gatherers used spears and knives as survival tools. And you cannot commit a massacre with a knife unless you're Zorro, or a ninja.
It's rare, but China has experienced several cases of mentally unstable people entering schools and stabbing multiple people and children, correct?
Anyway, the best we can hope for is that there are new regulations and exams required for obtaining a handgun. They are not going away, but maybe we can make sure that people with mental conditions are weeded out.
O.k, fair point, but it will always be harder to kill multiple people with a knife than with a hand gun. In the case of these little children, it's obviously easier for a nutter to do more damage, but it wouldn't have been so easy to kill the same amount of adults. There's also the factor of the distance a gun puts between the killer and his victim, allowing him to kill at a distance. With a knife you're compelled to get into some degree of physical struggle with the victim/victims.
actually knives were designed to be multi-functional... kill animals for food, not humans... big difference... cut meat for eating, sharpening wooden hunting tools, cleaning animal hides, etc etc ... but they were not PRIMARILY designed to kill another human.
the point is, as many others have made, that this nutjob killed 6 people using a gun in less than 1 minute... nobody and i mean nobody with a knife could do that... this guy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm had a Samurai sword in a busy church and he could only injure a lot of people... which is horrific really... but had he had access to a legally acquired handgun he would have killed many many people i'm sure.
i said kill 6 people in less than a minute... took this guy a while, only 2 died instantly... i dunno why cos he was only fighting 6 and 7 year old kids... the pussy... he should have used a gun? the american way huh? dumbass.
for every 1 story you can find like this .. from anywhere in the world.. i'll post you 5 stories of multiple gun shootings that only happened in the US.. how's that for a bet?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
another good reason why US teenagers like using guns instead of pipe bombs, chainsaws, etc as Pandora has suggest
Alex Robert Youshock, Two pipe bombs went off in a hallway of Hillsdale High School, in San Mateo, California, during the beginning of first period classes. Nobody was injured from the explosions. Alex Youshock, a 17-year-old former student of the school, was held by staff members until police arrived and was found with eight other pipe bombs, a two-foot-long sword, and a chainsaw concealed in a guitar case. Youshock was subsequently arrested and charged as an adult with eight felonies.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
actually knives were designed to be multi-functional... kill animals for food, not humans... big difference... cut meat for eating, sharpening wooden hunting tools, cleaning animal hides, etc etc ... but they were not PRIMARILY designed to kill another human.
the point is, as many others have made, that this nutjob killed 6 people using a gun in less than 1 minute... nobody and i mean nobody with a knife could do that... this guy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm had a Samurai sword in a busy church and he could only injure a lot of people... which is horrific really... but had he had access to a legally acquired handgun he would have killed many many people i'm sure.
i said kill 6 people in less than a minute... took this guy a while, only 2 died instantly... i dunno why cos he was only fighting 6 and 7 year old kids... the pussy... he should have used a gun? the american way huh? dumbass.
for every 1 story you can find like this .. from anywhere in the world.. i'll post you 5 stories of multiple gun shootings that only happened in the US.. how's that for a bet?
I am sure you could, but you have yet to make a sound arugement in anything. You bring up that the US is so crime ridden becaues we have guns, yet we have the same crime rate as UK. You bring up that guns do nothing but bad things, yet I have several times shown facts/stats on the ammount of crimes prevented by use of a gun. You bring up that guns were designed only to kill, I bring up knives and you keep reducing your arguement to reach your conclutions. The only thing you have said correctly is that guns kill faster. No one has disputed or argued that. You seem to really like to blame objects and the US, instead of the root cause. He killed people because he was nuts. I have agreed there needs to be a stricter regulation on who and how people get guns. But banning them completly will do nothing but affect the law abiders.
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
The problem with this is, You don't fucking know what he would do. You can't use that as an arguement or debate. You have some seriously bad debating skills.
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
The problem with this is, You don't fucking know what he would do. You can't use that as an arguement or debate. You have some seriously bad debating skills.
Well if all else fails I guess he can resort to callng people "pussy bitches" or "idiots" etc...
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
One thing that stood out for me in that text: "Police Chief Alex Hayes said Butler apparently took the gun from a closet." A closet? His father, the police officer's, gun was in a closet?
Maybe this wouldn't have even happened if the weapon had been locked away and not so easily accessable. Of course, speculation is always just speculation. Guns should always be behind locks in the house, though, I think.
"Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
The problem with this is, You don't fucking know what he would do. You can't use that as an arguement or debate. You have some seriously bad debating skills.
Well if all else fails I guess he can resort to callng people "pussy bitches" or "idiots" etc...
I see you have nothing to add to the debate, why post, you out of arguements?
I am sure you could, but you have yet to make a sound arugement in anything. You bring up that the US is so crime ridden becaues we have guns, yet we have the same crime rate as UK. You bring up that guns do nothing but bad things, yet I have several times shown facts/stats on the ammount of crimes prevented by use of a gun. You bring up that guns were designed only to kill, I bring up knives and you keep reducing your arguement to reach your conclutions. The only thing you have said correctly is that guns kill faster. No one has disputed or argued that. You seem to really like to blame objects and the US, instead of the root cause. He killed people because he was nuts. I have agreed there needs to be a stricter regulation on who and how people get guns. But banning them completly will do nothing but affect the law abiders.
i have made many sound arguments.. you are just choosing to ignore them.
• I showed you the stats that shows the US death total caused by firearms is 16 times higher than that of the other 25 richest countries in the world combined
• you don't have the same crime rate as the UK... you have the same crime rate if you had a 4000% reduction in gun crime maybe... but otherwise you and us are on the same in regards to theft, rape, arson... but we have a much lower murder rate, gun-crime rate.
• guns were designed to kill. knives weren't. thats a historical fact... yet you seem intent on arguing it.
• he killed people because he was nuts and he had access to a fucking gun!! Now either easy access to a gun is the issue (which you say isnt the case) or you have a problem with mental people over there. (which can't be the case as mental people are everywhere) - The simple fact is that America has the same level of mental fuckers as every other country... its just that they can pick up a gun a shitload easier than most other countries... and yet you still say the gun isnt the problem, its the person... well do something about the fucking people then... make them sit tests, exams, bi-monthly mental assessments... do something!
stats showing the prevention of a crime by use of a gun are suppositions... for every one of those stats I'll show you a stat on accidental shootings...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
The problem with this is, You don't fucking know what he would do. You can't use that as an arguement or debate. You have some seriously bad debating skills.
Well if all else fails I guess he can resort to callng people "pussy bitches" or "idiots" etc...
I see you have nothing to add to the debate, why post, you out of arguements?
[/quote]
I tagged out when you admitted that the reason for more gun crime in the states was that there were more guns, seemed to back up the point I was trying to make. Imagine, it took you 2 days to reach just that conclusion, how long might it take for you to consider the next brain teaser - less guns, resulting from more stringent regulations, may mean _______ gun crime. I'll let you mull it over
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
The problem with this is, You don't fucking know what he would do. You can't use that as an arguement or debate. You have some seriously bad debating skills.
thats why i used a question mark and also added in the word of 'wonder'
you have some seriously bad reading comprehension skills.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
So whats your stance on knives??? They were originall designed to kill, (small spear) Are you going to discredit knives because somepeople use them to kill and others to cut things and other secondary uses???
actually knives were designed to be multi-functional... kill animals for food, not humans... big difference... cut meat for eating, sharping wooden hunting tools, cleaning animal hides, etc etc ... but they were not PRIMARILY designed to kill another human.
the point is, as many others have made, that this nutjob killed 6 people using a gun in less than 1 minute... nobody and i mean nobody with a knife could do that... this guy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm had a Samurai sword in a busy church and he could only injure a lot of people... which is horrific really... but had he had access to a legally acquired handgun he would have killed many many people i'm sure.
Now you've changed you stance from "designed to kill" to "designed to kill humans". Knives were most certinly made to kill. Animals as well as they used them during battle with other tribes.
i havent changed my stance... i've stated right from the start that guns were designed to kill humans..
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
THey fail to realize that there are messed up people out there and they will commit crimes no matter what is against the law, As i pointed out in the other thread the US is about even with the UK in crime... we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns.
although this quote of yours came from the other thread... its the last line that is sooooo telling
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Comments
Nukes are precisely for home protection, just that the home in question is the nation. Dan's point about difference of scale, but not of kind stands here, though the point about nukes always killing innocents is fair enough.
But nuke warning shots (by definition of "warning") are absolutely for self-defence. The entire Cold War was perpetuated by exactly that well-accepted "balance of power" concept. It's not just to test that they work, it's to show off tht they work.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
disagree all you want... the invention of the gun was primarily for killing.... the fact we now use them for sport is by the by... they were invented to kill other humans... undeniable fact.
Well, you didn't speak of the invention of the gun you spoke of the design of the gun. They ARE guns designed for target shooting (quite expensive BTW) and yes even those guns can kill too.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
semantics...
i was saying guns were designed to kill... thats the same as saying invented... just as saucers were designed to hold cups.
Knives were designed to kill animals and to cut food. Hunter gatherers used spears and knives as survival tools. And you cannot commit a massacre with a knife unless you're Zorro, or a ninja.
actually knives were designed to be multi-functional... kill animals for food, not humans... big difference... cut meat for eating, sharpening wooden hunting tools, cleaning animal hides, etc etc ... but they were not PRIMARILY designed to kill another human.
the point is, as many others have made, that this nutjob killed 6 people using a gun in less than 1 minute... nobody and i mean nobody with a knife could do that... this guy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm had a Samurai sword in a busy church and he could only injure a lot of people... which is horrific really... but had he had access to a legally acquired handgun he would have killed many many people i'm sure.
Thanks. It would probably work out cheaper than a shrink. :thumbup:
Anyway, the best we can hope for is that there are new regulations and exams required for obtaining a handgun. They are not going away, but maybe we can make sure that people with mental conditions are weeded out.
O.k, fair point, but it will always be harder to kill multiple people with a knife than with a hand gun. In the case of these little children, it's obviously easier for a nutter to do more damage, but it wouldn't have been so easy to kill the same amount of adults. There's also the factor of the distance a gun puts between the killer and his victim, allowing him to kill at a distance. With a knife you're compelled to get into some degree of physical struggle with the victim/victims.
i said kill 6 people in less than a minute... took this guy a while, only 2 died instantly... i dunno why cos he was only fighting 6 and 7 year old kids... the pussy... he should have used a gun? the american way huh? dumbass.
for every 1 story you can find like this .. from anywhere in the world.. i'll post you 5 stories of multiple gun shootings that only happened in the US.. how's that for a bet?
Alex Robert Youshock, Two pipe bombs went off in a hallway of Hillsdale High School, in San Mateo, California, during the beginning of first period classes. Nobody was injured from the explosions. Alex Youshock, a 17-year-old former student of the school, was held by staff members until police arrived and was found with eight other pipe bombs, a two-foot-long sword, and a chainsaw concealed in a guitar case. Youshock was subsequently arrested and charged as an adult with eight felonies.
this didnt even make a ripple?!?!??! guy gets sent home from school... posts on facebook... then using his dads gun he goes back to the school and kills 2 people.
if he had no gun i wonder what he would have done? probably have stewed for a couple of days and then moved on with his life.
Well if all else fails I guess he can resort to callng people "pussy bitches" or "idiots" etc...
One thing that stood out for me in that text: "Police Chief Alex Hayes said Butler apparently took the gun from a closet." A closet? His father, the police officer's, gun was in a closet?
Maybe this wouldn't have even happened if the weapon had been locked away and not so easily accessable. Of course, speculation is always just speculation. Guns should always be behind locks in the house, though, I think.
i have made many sound arguments.. you are just choosing to ignore them.
• I showed you the stats that shows the US death total caused by firearms is 16 times higher than that of the other 25 richest countries in the world combined
• you don't have the same crime rate as the UK... you have the same crime rate if you had a 4000% reduction in gun crime maybe... but otherwise you and us are on the same in regards to theft, rape, arson... but we have a much lower murder rate, gun-crime rate.
• guns were designed to kill. knives weren't. thats a historical fact... yet you seem intent on arguing it.
• he killed people because he was nuts and he had access to a fucking gun!! Now either easy access to a gun is the issue (which you say isnt the case) or you have a problem with mental people over there. (which can't be the case as mental people are everywhere) - The simple fact is that America has the same level of mental fuckers as every other country... its just that they can pick up a gun a shitload easier than most other countries... and yet you still say the gun isnt the problem, its the person... well do something about the fucking people then... make them sit tests, exams, bi-monthly mental assessments... do something!
stats showing the prevention of a crime by use of a gun are suppositions... for every one of those stats I'll show you a stat on accidental shootings...
I tagged out when you admitted that the reason for more gun crime in the states was that there were more guns, seemed to back up the point I was trying to make. Imagine, it took you 2 days to reach just that conclusion, how long might it take for you to consider the next brain teaser - less guns, resulting from more stringent regulations, may mean _______ gun crime. I'll let you mull it over
thats why i used a question mark and also added in the word of 'wonder'
you have some seriously bad reading comprehension skills.
i havent changed my stance... i've stated right from the start that guns were designed to kill humans..
although this quote of yours came from the other thread... its the last line that is sooooo telling