Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gallup's Mirror on December 16, 2012 at 1:49am

Yeah, I thought about it a bit more and decided to make clear I didn't mean just rent-a-cops.

Of course you did. You realized your original premise was suspect after I responded. So you switched premises and blamed your own inadequate thinking and lack of clarity on my dumbness and stupidity while citing your smarts.

I don't believe I characterized your attitude toward the 2nd Amendment. Did I?

You hit the 'Reply' button on my post and directed your comments at me, including this one: "the arguments used by those opposed to gun ownership are almost invariably stupider than the ones used by the NRA and gun owners". Skip to the end of this post to see your most recent example.

It certainly looks like you're insulting me personally-- and everyone who disagrees with you-- while attacking me falsely for opposing gun ownership. Or do you still need to think more and make yourself more clear to everyone here too?

"Harden one target and the shooter simply finds another." Not in an instance like this one. This was about his mother and his school, it seems. I'm not sure a shoot-up in a movie theater would have made his day in much the same way.

You're straining rather hard to miss the point...

In much the same way, it seems, that, according to some, if the price of keeping defensive guns out of school is a few massacres, so be it.

... which is that gun rights in a free society are inexorably linked to mass killings like this one.

It's nothing like the same way. You say 'keeping defensive guns out of school equals massacres' but that's an assumption. What evidence do you offer to support that? Or are you just thin-air sure of it, like before?

And that despite not really offering any logical response to the notion that a few guns in the right hands might have meant only 5 or 10 or 15 kids dead rather than 20 kids.

Of course I did. I agreed in my original post, my last post, and now again here, that more guns might help. I'm simply not ignoring that 'fewer guns' is an option that might help too.

If the best you can do is say we need to ban guns as the only solution,

And thus you attribute this to me again, despite a readily-available transcript which shows I said absolutely nothing of the kind. Your integrity is just as impressive as your smartness.

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on December 16, 2012 at 3:01am

What's not to like about this guy?!

Permalink Reply by Jim Minion on December 22, 2012 at 10:38am

Unseen, you are not a member of the NRA or a gun owner, have you any training with guns or have you ever been in a situation where deadly force was being used? Military at all?

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 22, 2012 at 11:42am

Can't say that I have, but if your point is going to be I don't know what I'm talking about, that's irrelevant, because I'm sure some people with that sort of background hold similar views.

Permalink Reply by Jim Minion on December 22, 2012 at 3:12pm

Of course it is irrelevant to someone who has no clue, to your point as an example you could point to xians but many of them agree in their view.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 22, 2012 at 11:51pm

When I divine what your point is (assuming I do) I may have a response.

Permalink Reply by kOrsan on December 15, 2012 at 10:50am

Arming more people might lower the body count. But so might disarming more people.

Yeah. Hey. Listen! Guys! Seriously, listen. I have an idea, it's a little unconventional so bear with me alright. So, what if we, listen, what if we.. wait for it.... ban murder?

Permalink Reply by Reggie on December 22, 2012 at 11:25am

What a profound point! *jerking off motion*

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 22, 2012 at 11:45am

Laws are mostly applied in retrospect. We don't give people tickets for thinking about exceeding the speed limit or thinking about going on a shooting rampage.

Permalink Reply by Jim Minion on December 22, 2012 at 3:16pm

Never heard of NADD indefinite detention?

 

Permalink Reply by M.M. on February 24, 2013 at 1:27am

"Arming more people might lower the body count. But so might disarming more people. Nutcases like this young man in Connecticut would be a good start. That, I would call worthwhile."

I can agree with that.

What I find disturbing is the fact that the young mans mother thought that teaching a socially challenged troubled individual how to use firearms was a good idea.

That boggles my mind.

Which admittedly is no big accomplishment.

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on February 24, 2013 at 6:37am

Define "Nutcase".

Now define how you are going to disarm Nutcases.

Are you going to disarm non-Nutcases who just happened to be related to a Nutcase?

Who decides if you are a Nutcase?

Who decides if you are too close to a Nutcase to be allowed to exercise your rights and own a gun?

Hypothetical question:

There are two rooms,

In the first room there are 100 people, 99 sane people and 1 Nutcase.

In the second room there are 100 people, 99 sane people and 1 Nutcase.

In the first room everyone has a loaded Glock 17.

In the second room only the Nutcase has a loaded Glock 17.

In both rooms the Nutcase starts shooting people.

In which room is it most likely the Nutcase will be shot dead?

If you had to be in one of the two rooms which one would you choose to be in?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 73
• Next ›
• Page