The solution to gun violence is more guns. Right?

@oralloy,

You spread your semen laden lies constantly here at A2K. What does your mommy think of you doing that(qm)

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As 'Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters'
http://tinyurl.com/c54rbx8

0 Replies

@jcboy,

What actually happened is that someone from the cop shop came out, found out what you had and wound up with a free gun to add to their own collection. I nearly joined the force years ago, and the cops I knew realized that a gun is a tool. and a number of them thought it was great when a citizen wanted a given weapon "disposed of" because they got some nice pieces out of that. Kinda like the gun buyback crap where supposedly guns are bought to keep them out of the hands of criminals. I've got one, a one hundred and thirty year old revolver that a guy in my neighborhood did not want to fall into the hands of criminals. He had me dispose of it. I did. It shoots like brand new, is kept spotlessly clean and sits on display. I even have the six bullets that came in it since it was rarely fired. His disposable gun was worth about seven hundred dollars. It's among my favorites.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Thats a neat puzzle but you have to factor out the blanket mentality and factor in the variables, which arrrrreeee: in the room filled with the guns, who has them? Regular people like me and my cronies who carry all the time, but we dont even think about it most of the time because no one tries to shoot up the places we are in, and given the fact we are not there to shoot anyone but trouble makers we have hence never fired a round in public? In this case, fifty thousand guns could be present without a shot being fired. Now the othah scene-ario: one messed up psychopath with a single gun. How many rounds does this mzaniac have? Thats how many he can shoot at that time. One gun is dangerous to however many people. Oh, and before you say thats why we need to ban clips that hold multiple rounds, consider that Colubine is proof that you cannot stop an evil person from having all the ammo he wants.
It is not the number of guns, in the end it is who has them. Thats why more guns equal less crime, because citizens are everywhere and they dont hurt people. Criminals do.

1 Reply

@genefog2,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5204957)
Thats a neat puzzle but you have to factor out the blanket mentality and factor in the variables, which arrrrreeee: in the room filled with the guns, who has them? Regular people like me and my cronies who carry all the time, but we dont even think about it most of the time because no one tries to shoot up the places we are in, and given the fact we are not there to shoot anyone but trouble makers we have hence never fired a round in public? In this case, fifty thousand guns could be present without a shot being fired. Now the othah scene-ario: one messed up psychopath with a single gun. How many rounds does this mzaniac have? Thats how many he can shoot at that time. One gun is dangerous to however many people. Oh, and before you say thats why we need to ban clips that hold multiple rounds, consider that Colubine is proof that you cannot stop an evil person from having all the ammo he wants.

Nice try, Gene, but I don't think it works the way you suggest. Let's test it. I'll change the puzzle to suit your suggestions:

Imagine a room in which there are 100 people none of whom have guns...and a different room in which there are also 100 people, of whom every one is a person like Gene who "are never going to shoot anybody but trouble makers"…and 50 of those people like Gene who"are never going to shoot anybody but trouble makers" have 1,000 guns each, making a total of 50,000 guns.

All other things being equal, would you say the chances of someone getting shot in the latter room is greater or lesser than someone getting shot in the former?

Now...change the "50,000 guns" to whatever number you want until your answer is: The chances of someone getting shot in either room are equal.

HINT for the first question: The chances of someone getting shot in the latter room are much, much greater.

HINT for the second question: The chances will only become equal when the second room has no guns in it.

Quote:

It is not the number of guns, in the end it is who has them.

Actually, Gene...it IS the number of guns. Try the puzzle...you will see this clearly.

Quote:

Thats why more guns equal less crime...

That is absurd. We have MORE guns in the hands of more people than any other country...and we have more crime than most of them.

Really. Think about it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You can believe that if it makes you happy. I have had nearly three dozen guns in my posession for years, mili=tary weapons, revolvers, etc, and my personal experience proves these little scenarios do not work. What my personal experience proves is that responsible handling makes the difference, not how many guns you have. That is a myth perpetuated by the paranoid gun ban freaks who think no guns in the hands equals safety. Tell that to the countless people who face violent criminals every day and lose. I lived a lifetime learning that the number of guns is irrelevant, it is who has the guns that matters. But you can believe what makes you happy, everyone does.

1 Reply

@genefog2,

I am not a gun ban freak. My personal opinion is that guns will never be banned...or meaningfully regulated in America.

But I noticed that you never actually answered the question. I suspect that is because the answers are what I suppose them to be...and there is no way you can refute that.

So it really does not have to do with what I "believe."

Try again:

In which room...are you less likely to be shot?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

But I noticed that you never actually answered the question.

Really, Frank, could anyone ever possibly be more of a hypocrite?

And what's so damn odd is that you don't even notice. How is that possible?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5265013)

Quote:
Quote:
But I noticed that you never actually answered the question.

Really, Frank, could anyone ever possibly be more of a hypocrite?

And what's so damn odd is that you don't even notice. How is that possible?

C'mon, JTT, let's discuss music...or anything that you might be able to discuss without going through all these theatrics and histrionics.

What is you favorite classical piece? Your favorite opera?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

C'mon, JTT, let's discuss music...or anything

That's right, Frank, "anything" that will distract from the fact that you hypocritically accuse genefog2, or anyone you discuss anything with, of not answering questions.

You don't really think that Gene and everyone else can't see your delusions, do you?

Do you think that people don't notice how patently dishonest you are?

You sure fled the Mini Cooper thread in a big hurry.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

That's right, Frank, "anything" that will distract from the fact that you hypocritically accuse genefog2, or anyone you discuss anything with, of not answering questions.

You don't really think that Gene and everyone else can't see your delusions, do you?

Do you think that people don't notice how patently dishonest you are?

You sure fled the Mini Cooper thread in a big hurry.

Oh, you do put so much effort into being insulting and rude, JTT. It honestly is fun to watch.

So tell me...did you watch the Oscars?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Will you now apologize to genefog2 for being such a hypocrite, Frank?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5265046)
Will you now apologize to genefog2 for being such a hypocrite, Frank?

C'mon, JTT...you can tell us.

Did ya watch the Oscars?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Frank Apisa: But I noticed that you never actually answered the question.

I'm pretty sure that genefog2 knows just how dishonest, just how much of a hypocrite you are, Frank. CI mentioned it recently, as has Spendius. Matt was pointing it out to, using his nice guy voice. Others have described it over the years.

If there is anyone who doesn't realize it, they only have to read a couple of this lame shtick you use to avoid "actually answer[ing] the question".

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5265067)
Quote:
Frank Apisa: But I noticed that you never actually answered the question.

I'm pretty sure that genefog2 knows just how dishonest, just how much of a hypocrite you are, Frank. CI mentioned it recently, as has Spendius. Matt was pointing it out to, using his nice guy voice. Others have described it over the years.

If there is anyone who doesn't realize it, they only have to read a couple of this lame shtick you use to avoid "actually answer[ing] the question".

Why are you putting so much effort into being nasty, insulting, and offensive, JTT?

Did you mommy not give you enough attention and you are craving it from others? Or was it daddy?

Not that I mind the fact that you are obsessed with me. What the hell...it doesn't cost me anything...and the only negative is that I feel sorry that you look so foolish for doing it.

I'm on your side, JTT.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Why do you chide folks for not answering questions, Frank, when this is something that you actually do excel at?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5265132)
Why do you chide folks for not answering questions, Frank, when this is something that you actually do excel at?

Did you watch the Oscars show, JTT?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I answered the question, it just isnt the accdeptable answer. Again, since you missed it the first time, a room with ten thousand guns and no one who has a twistedhomicidal mentality is every bit as safe as a room with no guns, actually safer because there are no unarmed victims. Here's a shred of proof: Luby's had a gun ban sign, as did the theatre in Colorado and every school and church out there. No one had a gun. One single nut walked in with firepower and killed the innocent victims. Go to a gun show. Thousands of guns and tons of ammunition and not one shooting. I rest my case.

1 Reply

@genefog2,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5265013)
I answered the question, it just isnt the accdeptable answer. Again, since you missed it the first time, a room with ten thousand guns and no one who has a twistedhomicidal mentality is every bit as safe as a room with no guns, actually safer because there are no unarmed victims. Here's a shred of proof: Luby's had a gun ban sign, as did the theatre in Colorado and every school and church out there. No one had a gun. One single nut walked in with firepower and killed the innocent victims. Go to a gun show. Thousands of guns and tons of ammunition and not one shooting. I rest my case.

You are free to rest anything you want, but if you are going to suggest that this IS an answer to my question, you must be doing for the sake of humor.

If there are ten thousand guns in one room...and no guns in another...you are much more likely to be shot in the room with ten thousand guns.

If there is a room with 100 people drinking coffee…and another room with 100 people where there is no coffee…in which room would you more likely see someone spill a bit of coffee?

It really is amazing…considering all the ammunition (!) you guys have to back up your position…you still cannot even acknowledge something like this.

Well…as many of us say…there are people who simply are not mature enough to own a gun. Unfortunately, way too many of those people DO OWN guns.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Why do you chide folks for not answering questions, Frank, when this is something that you actually do excel at?

Quote:

Did you watch the Oscars show, JTT?

Quote:

... but if you are going to suggest that this IS an answer to my question, you must be doing for the sake of humor.

1 Reply

The solution to gun violence is more guns. Right?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know