is two dudes with out guns that tackle him.
The gun nuts will still turn this into a victory.
“Once again firepower has saved the day! If that gun hadn’t been there, that psycho could have killed millions, millions i tell you!”
“But it’s the same gun that was used to kill those people.”
“Errrr… but… but that’s not the point, this gun saved lives!!”
If only everyone could walk around with 2 or 3 bodyguards there would be no reason to carry guns I suppose. A lot less women would be raped, that’s for sure.
But what if the bodyguards rape the women they’re walking around with? Checkmate, hippies.
[reply]If only everyone could walk around with 2 or 3 bodyguards there would be no reason to carry guns I suppose. A lot less women would be raped, that’s for sure.
But what if the bodyguards rape the women they’re walking around with? Checkmate, hippies.[/reply]
Almost all rapes are by men. We should outlaw men so that people don’t get raped anymore.
What about shemales?
What about shemales?
I like the shemales colorado, they are stuffed with spicy chicken and pork and wrapped in corn leaves and steamed!
If only everyone could walk around with 2 or 3 bodyguards there would be no reason to carry guns I suppose. A lot less women would be raped, that’s for sure.
It’s a good thing that town hall brought its body guards. [rolleyes]
I might add that gun didn’t keep the gunman all that “safe” against the two people that took him down. He also had his own gun taken away from him and pointed at him.
but there’s no way that a person with a gun could be overpowered if their only using it for protection. God let this instance happen cause the gunman was evil.
Late,
grmpysmrf
Did you ever watch Dukes of Hazzard? They couldn’t own guns so instead they had bow and arrows with dynamite taped to the arrows. Do you really want someone to go Duke’s of Hazzard on your ass? They would blow you and your whole house up with a piece of wood, a string, and stick.
I don’t think I EVER saw anyone get killed (or even badly injured) on any episode of “Dukes of Hazzard” come to think of it. Kind of like on “GI Joe”. Crap was always blowing up, but no one ever got killed.
And who was the retard that designed the Hazzard jail? Or did the Dukes have an insider working on their behalf?
“Let’s make a window to the outside that Cooter can hook a winch to and bust the boys out every time.”
“Good idea. And let’s make a hook for them to hang the giant key ring on . . . right out of reach . . . but not so far that they can’t tie their belts together and snag 'em off the hook.”
Who said that guns make you invincible?
wasn’t that the point of all of your guns=safety posts?
A gun is a weapon, plain and simple. It’s the same as if you had a hammer, baseball bat, bazooka, hand grenade, golf club, fists, or whatever.
2 things:
A baseball bat, fists, a hammer, golf club knife yadda yadda are not the same as a gun. the chances of someone killing you from across the room with any of these are pretty shitty… The fact that we don’t hear about innocent bystanders dying from a drive by slapping should be proof enough for you.
#2 if a gun is no different than a fist then we all clearly don’t needs guns because we all have fists.
You can use it to defend yourself or you can use it to take action. I don’t know why you are so hung up on guns. They are a lot safer than cyanide pills in water or a syringe full of gasoline.
safer you say? how many people died last year from guns VS syringe full of gasoline or cyanide?
Did you ever watch Dukes of Hazzard? They couldn’t own guns so instead they had bow and arrows with dynamite taped to the arrows. Do you really want someone to go Duke’s of Hazzard on your ass?
Dynamite is highly regulated (unlike guns) which makes the lack of drive by TNTing very odd considering that you’ve made statements in the vain of, “if you regulate something only outlaws will have it and everyone will be at their mercy.” not so with TNT, I wonder why? that’s a mystery!
And the most obvious, is that the dukes were not real life. wait, did you think that was a reality show?
They would blow you and your whole house up with a piece of wood, a string, and stick. Guns are just a means to an end but there are a whole lot more ways to get there.
So, guns are keeping people from blowing up houses with arrows and dynamite?
weakest argument ever.
Late,
grmpysmrf
You don’t need TNT to be effective, just TNT equivalent (think Boston).
People intending to do harm do not care about regulations or laws. They get the components they require one way or another. Meth is still cooked despite the components being ‘regulated’ to prevent its manufacture. Guns would still get into the hands of criminals even if they were made illegal. Knife-point incidents would increase, etc.
I’ll give you my pressure-cooker when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
You don’t need TNT to be effective, just TNT equivalent (think Boston).
People intending to do harm do not care about regulations or laws. They get the components they require one way or another. Meth is still cooked despite the components being ‘regulated’ to prevent its manufacture. Guns would still get into the hands of criminals even if they were made illegal. Knife-point incidents would increase, etc.
you really think Boston explosives easily (or even at all) attach to a bow and arrow?
Well no kidding you can’t stop it 100%. So, since we can’t stop it 100% let’s deregulate it 100%? terrible policy.
I think drugs and guns are a little different when it comes to the context of illegality.
specifically, with drugs people are killing themselves, with guns people killing other people, although, druggies, they use guns against other people in order to keep killing themselves.
Late,
grmpysmrf
[reply]You don’t need TNT to be effective, just TNT equivalent (think Boston).
People intending to do harm do not care about regulations or laws. They get the components they require one way or another. Meth is still cooked despite the components being ‘regulated’ to prevent its manufacture. Guns would still get into the hands of criminals even if they were made illegal. Knife-point incidents would increase, etc.
you really think Boston explosives easily (or even at all) attach to a bow and arrow?
Well no kidding you can’t stop it 100%. So, since we can’t stop it 100% let’s deregulate it 100%? terrible policy.
I think drugs and guns are a little different when it comes to the context of illegality.
specifically, with drugs people are killing themselves, with guns people killing other people, although, druggies, they use guns against other people in order to keep killing themselves.
Late,
grmpysmrf[/reply]
You’re completely missing the point. But I can’t help but notice that you sure do have some issues with people who use drugs. Not everyone who uses drugs is killing themselves by doing so. Many drugs done in moderation are less harmful than a lot of what you can legally put into your body anyway. Some drugs have the potential of killing you and fucking you up your first time. But that’s all irrelevant regarding the topic.
I don’t think it’s any of your business or the government’s business what adults decide to do with their own bodies. Just like I don’t think it’s anyone’s business if two consenting adults of the same sex want to fuck or get married. It’s not hurting you, it’s their choice, their lives, so get over it or go piss and moan about it alone and let it eat away at you.
The dealers and cartels are the ones who are killing people. If certain drugs were legalized they’d be out of business and we would have some new (legal) jobs.
Anyway, I don’t own any guns, I don’t really like being around them, I don’t think assault-rifles should be legal, and I think tighter regulations on who and how people purchase guns should be put into place ASAP. So, I actually agree with you quite a bit on this topic. But the way you generalize things and the extreme black and white nonsense you stutter is absolutely nauseating.
I am the last person who wants deregulation of hazardous items and processes.
I’m telling you that there are ‘workarounds’ to the regulations and processes. Not necessarily loop-holes either.
Risk is inherent to anything and everything. To eliminate all risk, either don’t do it or get rid of it world-wide.
How about your name goes on ‘the list’ every time you purchase a potentially hazardous component (a pressure cooker). How does a person intending to do harm work around that? Well, they get several unrelated people to each buy a component and then bring them together at a central location.
How can the regulations be proactive vs. reactive?
The authors of regulations have to be several steps ahead of the bad people. The planners have to think like the bed people (hackers hired by a company to help the company secure it’s assets from hackers).
Good Dr.s and Pharm.s kill people each year with Rx. How do they cut their error rates? How does the medical community prevent anyone with sleeping meds from killing themselves or someone else with the assistance of a plastic grocery bag and a roll of tape? There would have to be a world-wide production stop of sleeping meds, plastic bags, and tape to eliminate this risk. However, someone would find a workaround to it with plastic sheeting, a rubber band, and another chemical that causes drowsiness.
Risk is inherent to anything and everything. To eliminate all risk, either don’t do it or get rid of it world-wide…
Nobody is talking about eliminating it 100%, just curbing this free for all that’s going on right now.
Late,
grmpysmrf
If you are asking for Fed legislation, keep in mind these are the same people who wrote HAMP legislation (lacking mandatory and significal principle reductions (120,000 principle reductions vs. about 700,000 interest rate reductions for a total of around 800,000 mortgages helped when it was supposedly intended to help 4 million, but more HAMP helped mortgages are falling back into default)) and forgiveness of student loans for public servants legislation for which pretty much nobody qualifies (I have a couple friends who are both public servants who will never be able to pay off their student loans, do not qualify for the Fed forgivness program due to its insane qualification criteria that nobody can meet, and bankruptcy will not discharge student loan debt). Hmmm, I wonder why this is the way it is. Mortgages, student loans, and firearms are big business. Big business has big money and big influence over legislation and candidate support contributions.
You know if the gubment comes to take my guns away I will ward them off with my gun stick. Hooray for guns because they keep me safe by harming others at the same time. They should call them irony sticks!! The debate about guns never gets old!!! Let’s make more threads about guns!! Fook yeah~!
If you are asking for Fed legislation, keep in mind these are the same people who wrote HAMP legislation (lacking mandatory and significal principle reductions (120,000 principle reductions vs. about 700,000 interest rate reductions for a total of around 800,000 mortgages helped when it was supposedly intended to help 4 million, but more HAMP helped mortgages are falling back into default)) and forgiveness of student loans for public servants legislation for which pretty much nobody qualifies (I have a couple friends who are both public servants who will never be able to pay off their student loans, do not qualify for the Fed forgivness program due to its insane qualification criteria that nobody can meet, and bankruptcy will not discharge student loan debt). Hmmm, I wonder why this is the way it is. Mortgages, student loans, and firearms are big business. Big business has big money and big influence over legislation and candidate support contributions.
student loans =/= gun regulation laws.
one area of incompetence does not equate to all around incompetence.
Late,
grmpysmrf
More than 10 times as many people die of old age in America than from guns. FACT.
We should make it illegal to be old.
Ship 'em all to Canada or something.
Damn hippies.