OK To TAKE GUNS TO END MURDER?

To answer the question as it is put, which should in no way be taken to imply my endorsement of the implied functionality or any part thereof, no. I mean, even you're not saying it would make everyone happy and honest, would it make everyone compatible? So why try to shine **** and square folks vibes that would be doing alright otherwise? Can we take violence out of the human experience? Legalizing marijuana is more in keeping with the nature of a solution, were one to exist.

It's like I don't care at all that deer get hit by cars. In a sense the fact that it happens imparts dignity to those of us who've managed to avoid it - not saying that's worth the trouble in and of itself, but seeing as it happens of it's own accord as a function of vehicle-use and animal behavior, I can dig it. Either way though, I'd hate to have shot a deer in the conventional manner - that particular act, not that it happens, better it does for conservation purposes, but in the sense that people do it, were I to get my fingerprints on it - I'm sure I would vomit and be depressed. I mean, they run around, see things, eat, procreate - deer are exceptionally good at being deer, it's a hell of a thing to just have come into existence - to intervene for no practical reason, it's the arbitrariness relative to every other thing concerned except the hunter that makes it not my thing.

My dear populist, you're no closer to equitable coexistence among men than those who say gay-marriage is no good because it's just for the money, or some such thing. Concern for others isn't my department - but that, then, at least, is one thing not adding to my delusions of grandeur. That is, if you really took people seriously, as opposed to seeing them as subsidiaries of yourself...

ZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM . . .

The sound of ironic satire shooting right over Hanno's head . . .

Not surprising; I hear that he's started calling himself "height-challened" because just so much goes over his head.

What - is this just in response to the child porn thing and you felt the need to do more than reply? How witty and clever. Jesus, forgive me for failing to spend 40 hours a week here and acknowledge this nuance of forum culture - and instead have the gall to articulate an opinion on the topic. What a misuse of the forum.

I'll get to the child porn thing also - I'm rabidly in favor of the interests of the American pedophile/sex offender - those people are heroic national treasures, every damn one of 'em.

Whether or not you knew the context of the satire doesn't alter the fact that you took at face value an incredibly stupid argument (in fact, no argument at all, the premise begs the questions). DD may well have arguments against handgun ownership, but he's definitely not that stupid.

Basically you jumped all over that argument because you wanted to take it seriously, because you wanted to argue against something so patently stupid. All of your three paragraphs of palaver could have been replaced by simply pointing out that the premise begs the question.

Don't expect anyone reading in this thread to take you very seriously.

Eat me - I called his bluff. He's trying to make a prick out of someone for posing a question he don't like the sound of but wants to do a better job than talking it out - thinks he can to set up a no-brainer that David wouldn't like the drift of to show it can be done - bullshit, just goes to show what you kids take for granted what might not be so. And you give me flak cuz I can get my point across by way of discourse? Flamboyant. I mean, you drones think you've got the high ground - let's have it - stated presupposition aside did David in the censorship/rape thing beg the question or did Drew not?

Eat you?

Isn't that equivalent to telling someone to eat sh*t?

Hanno wrote: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

Oh? Really? Fascinating! Do tell! You don't say? Say, look, i'm sorry to interrupt, but. i've gotta run . . .



[size=8](Moron)[/size]

By the way, flannel-mouth, i'm 57 years old. So how old are you? Ninety years old, 100? Because otherwise, you can kiss my @ss with that "kids" bullshit.

Don't mind set. Someone replaced his Iams puppy chow with cat food this morning, and he's feeling a bit of a pussy.

You're pretty good with the schoolyard polemics yourself, Kid . . .



Moron

Hanno, the correct response to moron is putz...

(just trying to help and all. :wink: )

Rock

I would have gone with the n-word, since it's in alpha order and all....

I got the pathetic intent of your "eat me" bullshit, what's pathetic is that you don't seem to know how easy it is to hold you up to ridicule for what you write yourself. What you also apparently don't get is that the reason we're talking schoolyard polemics is because that's where your head is at, an elementary school playground.


Moron


Jackass

BFGPP

3-minute response time after I've been away from the controls all weekend - sinner, stone thyself.

Re: OK To TAKE GUNS TO END MURDER?

Jurisdictional questions aside, for the moment:
given that murderers did not wait for guns to be invented
to begin murdering,
is there a reason to believe that thay will stop murdering if guns
are taken away, and thay will not make new ones ?




David

OK, I got from reading the thread that this was supposed to be satire for something or other, not as an intentional philosophical proposition.

But I find it an interesting philosophical proposition, so I'm going to answer it anyway, satire be damned.

I say no. Guns serve a very useful self-defense purpose, and it isn't only for defense against murderers. There is also defense against robbers and rapists for example. Or even defense against a thug who wants to beat you up. Not to mention defense against attack by dangerous animals.

And some people use guns to hunt food to eat.

In my opinion, "the value that guns provide" far outweighs "the value that would be provided by reducing the murder rate to zero".