Thoughts on gun control

My point that Canada has a shitload of guns, most of them never registered by their legal owners?

Your gun registry is a complete failure. You can't use it to estimate anything.

You blame the U.S. for firearms deaths instead of your Canadian criminals.

So, what exactly is YOUR point?

Actually, I do. But you'd never understand.

cjhsa wrote:

Actually, I do. But you'd never understand.

Brilliant answer. Just brilliant.

A true sign of one who is defeated.

cjhsa wrote:

California banned .50 BMG weapons, so the only U.S. manufacturer selling to the public, Barrett Arms, has designed a gun of slightly smaller caliber, and they're heading west with it. Sure, the cartridge is unique and thus expensive, but it sure makes their point, that gun control is almost always created by and for people who don't understand guns.

Safe handling of firearms and shooting skills should be taught in school, just like sex education and PE. The rules in school right now, where kids are expelled for having a plastic knife in their lunch, or a squirtgun in their backpack, have been created by retards. Just more miserable failure on the part of public schools (they like to blame parents, but remember, they taught those parents).

[/b]

Sure. Why not create another Columbine et al.

You don't have to understand guns to understand that their sole purpose is to kill.

Intrepid wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Actually, I do. But you'd never understand.

Brilliant answer. Just brilliant.

A true sign of one who is defeated.

I find it most difficult indeed
to understand the thought processes
of those who choose to protect violent criminals
from the defenses of their victims.

Maybe u have good friends who are violent criminals ?

David

Intrepid wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

California banned .50 BMG weapons, so the only U.S. manufacturer selling to the public, Barrett Arms, has designed a gun of slightly smaller caliber, and they're heading west with it. Sure, the cartridge is unique and thus expensive, but it sure makes their point, that gun control is almost always created by and for people who don't understand guns.

Safe handling of firearms and shooting skills should be taught in school, just like sex education and PE. The rules in school right now, where kids are expelled for having a plastic knife in their lunch, or a squirtgun in their backpack, have been created by retards. Just more miserable failure on the part of public schools (they like to blame parents, but remember, they taught those parents).

[/b]

Sure. Why not create another Columbine et al.

Columbine wud have turned out a lot differently
if the victims had all been armed.
The murderers wud not have lasted more than a few seconds
after thay began their violent depredations.
Disarming the victims creates a paradise
for violent predators.
If u were going to commit multiple murders,
wud u desire your victims to be armed, or helpless,
as thay were in Columbine, by operation of law ?

Quote:

You don't have to understand guns to understand that their sole purpose is to kill.

It was very much in the interest of the decent students of Columbine
to KILL the predators. Killing is either good or bad,
depending upon what kind of person gets killed
and upon what he is DOING at the time of his death.
Defensive killing is GOOD, in a predatory emergency,
e.g., Columbine.

The way u express yourself,
u make killing sound all fungible.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Actually, I do. But you'd never understand.

Brilliant answer. Just brilliant.

A true sign of one who is defeated.

I find it most difficult indeed
to understand the thought processes
of those who choose to protect violent criminals
from the defenses of their victims.

Maybe u have good friends who are violent criminals ?

David

Maybe you are a few grains short of a full load. Who is protecting criminals of any sort?

And, what does from the defenses of their victims mean?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

California banned .50 BMG weapons, so the only U.S. manufacturer selling to the public, Barrett Arms, has designed a gun of slightly smaller caliber, and they're heading west with it. Sure, the cartridge is unique and thus expensive, but it sure makes their point, that gun control is almost always created by and for people who don't understand guns.

Safe handling of firearms and shooting skills should be taught in school, just like sex education and PE. The rules in school right now, where kids are expelled for having a plastic knife in their lunch, or a squirtgun in their backpack, have been created by retards. Just more miserable failure on the part of public schools (they like to blame parents, but remember, they taught those parents).

[/b]

Sure. Why not create another Columbine et al.

Columbine wud have turned out a lot differently
if the victims had all been armed.
The murderers wud not have lasted more than a few seconds
after thay began their violent depredations.
Disarming the victims creates a paradise
for violent predators.
If u were going to commit multiple murders,
wud u desire your victims to be armed, or helpless,
as thay were in Columbine, by operation of law ?

Quote:

You don't have to understand guns to understand that their sole purpose is to kill.

It was very much in the interest of the decent students of Columbine
to KILL the predators. Killing is either good or bad,
depending upon what kind of person gets killed
and upon what he is DOING at the time of his death.
Defensive killing is GOOD, in a predatory emergency,
e.g., Columbine.

The way u express yourself,
u make killing sound all fungible.

It is sufficiently clear to me that you are a complete nut case.

Columbine wud have turned out a lot differently
if the victims had all been armed.
The murderers wud not have lasted more than a few seconds
after thay began their violent depredations.
Disarming the victims creates a paradise
for violent predators.
If u were going to commit multiple murders,
wud u desire your victims to be armed, or helpless,
as thay were in Columbine, by operation of law ?

Quote:

Columbine wud have turned out a lot differently
if the victims had all been armed.
The murderers wud not have lasted more than a few seconds
after thay began their violent depredations.
Disarming the victims creates a paradise
for violent predators.
If u were going to commit multiple murders,
wud u desire your victims to be armed, or helpless,
as thay were in Columbine, by operation of law ?

Just browsing, I read this. Wonderful....I'm just imagining children going to school, kitted out and equipped like an army platoon....for their own safety, of course.

I'm just imagining the scene as they defend themselves, McTag! On the other hand, if the killer/s didn't have such easy access to guns in the first place ........

There seems to be a 'breathing space' in all of the little firefights I have, except with you and lash, Setanta.

I have p-ssing contests with Frank Apisa, but then we have weeks where we can exchange thoughts without firing shots. I have differences with timberland, and dyslexia, and cjhsa, and a couple of others, but none of those relationships (for lack of better term) seems as poisoned as that with you and Lash.

Setanta, you seem to really have something against me that goes pretty deep.

You say its because I viciously attack those who attack religionists. I could say you don't lack at all in vicious attacks yourself, but I don't think you would have any of it.

I "have the balls" to admit anything I've done, but I have the feeling that you would find some exception to something else with no time to waste.

Let's see - I asked you in a PM if Lash is a racist because of the depth of dislike she has for me, and you said that you think she has those tendencies (I think you made reference to conversations in which she talked of her black "homies", or some such) - or do you deny telling me that?

The truth is, I'm afraid, that you and Lash won't take "yes" or "no" for an answer from me. I am in the same irredeemable category for you that you two have put Arella Mae in - you two will never let things go with her, or me.

Now, I expect that you'll reply to the effect that this is all in my mind, and that you have no interest in answering me at all, except to not let me get away with any "special pleading" for religionists.

But there is something very unhealthy about the way you simply cannot let the hostility toward me go. It's not good, man.

I said earlier that these forums would be very drab without the spice you and some others provide, and I meant that.

But if you and Lash and I never exchange the kind of going-for-the-jugular darts that all three of us have ever again, I wouldn't miss that at all.