|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
No, that would be a definition of "safe". Accessible and safe are two different things, which is the point of the thread.
A sane definition of readily accessible would include loaded with a functioning safety such as a grip safety. Or with a biometric detection system. NoNukes writes:
Depending on the weapon, that would be a definition of "useless".
Or without a bullet in the chamber.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
I keep telling you, they are.
Unless you are insane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
petrophysics1 writes:
So you're advocating armed resistance against your own government?
Why don't you explain to us the great benefits of allowing the government to round up people, put them in camps, and then in ovens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat's Eye writes:
Nah, we'd probably just poke them with a flower.
They're probably worried about some crazy left-wing commie grabbing a gun and shooting up the place just to make them look bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat's Eye writes:
Nothing will change what the NRA thinks.
I don't think what you'd actually do changes what the NRA thinks you would do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ramoss writes:
Our local bikers hang out at Tim Hortons. One night they foiled a robbery at the gas station next door.
They had reoccurring biker nights to attract their business, and were warned by the police that is not a good idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Actually, it went more like this: I can imagine it went something like this.... One of the bikers, with arms and legs as thick as tree-trunks, sauntered across the street and said, "I'm sorry. You must desist. This is not the Canadian way." The perpetrator looked up, said, "Oh. I'm sorry," dropping his bent pin in a trash bin as he walked away. When the Mounties arrived on horseback singing I AM Canadian the bikers joined in, in harmony, and bought a round of Tim Hortons double-doubles and maple-dip doughnuts. Then they all sang a few stanzas from The Lumberjack Song as the Mounties rode off into the snow drifts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
We can charge the bartender.
Do we arrest the brewmaster for your drunk driving?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mikechell writes:
If you act like idiots, we're going to point it out.
Stay the hell out of our business and we'll stay out of yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
And that means that we don't place the whole responsibility on the drunk. A bartender can reasonably conclude that a patron has had enough and we do hold him responsible to some extent for the patron's actions if he continues to serve alcohol to the patron. Maybe we don't extend that responsibility to the brewmaster or the truck driver but the fact is that we, as a society, do recognize that the responsibility does extend beyond the individual.
ringo writes:
And? We can charge the bartender.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mikechell writes:
Your conspiracy theory has already been addressed but it doesn't make a bit of difference anyway. If ANY child is killed by a gun that his parents bought to "protect" him, there's something wrong. Handwaving the deaths that DO happen is disgraceful.
What you will never hear, because our news agencies (and yours) tend to shy away from good news, is the number of crimes that are prevented by gun owners.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
No, not much like that. A car DOES take you to boy scouts while a gun DOES NOT protect you. A car is an effective and useful tool. A gun (when purchased for protection) is not. Much like if he is killed in a car that his parents bought to drive him to boy scouts? A better analogy would be if a child was killed by a boa constrictor that his parents bought him because it was cute and cuddly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Correct.
The bartender's responsibility is the same as the responsibility of someone who tries to enforce a contract signed by someone clearly intoxicated...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Exactly. Nobody who fires a shotgun out the window thinks he'll hit anybody. When people don't think about the consequences of their actions, society needs to protect itself from their stupidity.
Nobody who buys a gun for protection thinks it will end up killing their own child.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mikechell writes:
In the US, guns are clearly under-regulated.
But they proven, again and again, that they would rather over-regulate than under-regulate.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024