I read in the newspaper that a 12-year old had injured two other kids with a gun.
Now, what about that "sanity check" the NRA wanted ?
Now, what about that "sanity check" the NRA wanted ?
The thing is no one wields water, wields cars, nor wields stairs to kill people.
Well then, I must have misunderstood when you said exactly that.No, I didn't say that.
Will you be banning archery? Arrows weren't invented to tickle.Also, you conveniently missed the fact that none of those were designed to kill people unlike guns. Don't bother to try again. It's rather pointless and a waste of time.
Not too long ago, a teen nearby fell down their stairs, broke their neck, and died. Will you be seeking to outlaw stairs next? Do it for the children, man!
Cars kill more kids than guns. We need to get rid of cars as well.
Clearly, we're not alone in that.I see you guys took your stupid pills today!
I know you do some clarification in the next sentence, but I want you to think about this statement just a little bit before we deal with the clarification because you've hit the nail on the head perfectly here. Anything can be improperly used, with violent intent even. As Thrasher pointed out, even something as simple as water can be and has been misused as a weapon. Yet, we don't have national debates about anything but guns. That highlights shaky logic, plain and simple.There is virtually no object that when either improperly used or involved in an accident that couldn't result in injury or death.
As I mentioned a couple posts up, there's going to be a whole lot of shooting going on in Sochi in a few weeks and I'm pretty sure death won't come into play at all. Thus, it IS NOT all about death.The difference is that the purpose of a gun is death. Whether hunting, defense, war, police action, or whatever - it is all about death.
An excellent summation. As usual, the extremists of both sides generally dominate the discourse, making it easier to dismiss the foolishness of "the other side" and taking a reasonable middle ground off the table before it ever gets considered. That said, I see two significant differences between the sides on this one.That is the real issue - there are always extremists who want to ban all guns, and others who think toddlers should have automatic weapons if they want … but for most people, it is about how do we have a country where gun ownership is not fundamentally threatened, but at the same time it is more than a trivial thing for someone to amass an arsenal that can take out a school or theater.
there's going to be a whole lot of shooting going on in Sochi in a few weeks and I'm pretty sure death won't come into play at all. Thus, it IS NOT all about death.
Guns are designed to kill people? That's all? They are never being used to defend people?
Dead is dead, but you choose to ignore the difference between "dead right" and "dead wrong". For someone that values how a person died, those two people are not leaving the earth with the same moral standing (for lack of a better term). That's your choice, but you don't get to make that choice for everyone, nor do you have the logic to make your choice in any way "better". Thus, you knowingly attempt to invalidate the other side's argument before it even gets presented, which I believe you've said in the past is both invalid logic and poor form.Two people who are starving come across a meal on a table. One is closer and gets to it first, the second one still wants it and tries to take it away (setting an attack/defend context). They both have 9mm pistols, and simultaneously shoot each other dead.
Does one 'attacking' and the other 'defending' change the status of the two people? Does it change the operational status of the weapons? Could a normal person without ballistics distinguish which was the 'attack' gun and which was 'defending'?
Dead is dead, but you choose to ignore the difference between "dead right" and "dead wrong". For someone that values how a person died, those two people are not leaving the earth with the same moral standing (for lack of a better term). That's your choice, but you don't get to make that choice for everyone, nor do you have the logic to make your choice in any way "better". Thus, you knowingly attempt to invalidate the other side's argument before it even gets presented, which I believe you've said in the past is both invalid logic and poor form.
for someone believes in moral, ethic relativity, but ironically preaches singular objective intention of human inventions. Perhaps the reason why these half-brainers always try to sue gun manufacturers - an inanimate object possess intrinct purpose "inbued" by the maker but independent of user.
for someone never seen a "chair", it is just a pile of wood. A long stick to those never seen a rifle.