15-Year-Old Killed For Not Passing Game

[quote name='CoffeeEdge']And you seriously think that's the norm?

So, should the stupid acts of an infinitesimally small fraction of gun users should cause punishment to and tight restrictions on the millions and millions of gun owners in the US?[/QUOTE]

Except that firearms fatalities, both intentional and accidental, are most certainly quantifiable and by no means "infinitesimal," speaking both grammatically and quantitatively. 6% of all firearms fatalities were accidental, and the remaining 94% are homicide and suicide - neither particularly noble reasons for owning firearms, and there is some evidence that gun-based suicide is viewed as "easy" because of the speed of delivery relative to other means - e.g., pills or cutting.

But raw numbers mean nothing. The moment I can find per capita victimization rates in the US, I'm sure you and other irrational gun types will excuse away the enormous disparity in the probability of victimization (I do know that the # of victims per 10,000 people in NYC is 350, or 3.5%, and that in Osaka, the "most dangerous city in Japan," it's 3.4 per 10,000, or 0.034%) as due to phenomena not necessarily more important than firearms (I'll agree that far), but exclusive of firearms permissiveness in the US. That, despite very clear demonstrable differences between the US and other nations in terms of victimization, that guns are wholly blameless.

But, hey, let it be known that I wasn't the one who tried to start off with facts. It was the one who claimed that firearms fatalities are "infinitesimally small."

What's most striking to me about the account of what happened seems to be the clear implication that the shooter did not consider the gravity of his actions until after he fired his gun. Which most certainly speaks to the quality of parenthood and social environment he dealt with growing up.
 
Myke, I'm not going to click the "View Post" button, but whatever it is you posted, I'd like to reply with:
Shut up. Gb2/debateteam/
 
[quote name='endlessPRO']When 15-year-old Olivier Baptiste refused to hand over the video game he was playing to his 18-year-old friend William Suarez, Suarez pulled out a .32-caliber Smith and Wesson from his waistband and shot Baptiste in the head. [/quote]

I'm sorry, I'm already going to hell anyway but fuck... THAT right there is FUN KNEE! Oh man, lool.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Except that firearms fatalities, both intentional and accidental, are most certainly quantifiable and by no means "infinitesimal," speaking both grammatically and quantitatively. 6% of all firearms fatalities were accidental, and the remaining 94% are homicide and suicide - neither particularly noble reasons for owning firearms, and there is some evidence that gun-based suicide is viewed as "easy" because of the speed of delivery relative to other means - e.g., pills or cutting.

But raw numbers mean nothing. The moment I can find per capita victimization rates in the US, I'm sure you and other irrational gun types will excuse away the enormous disparity in the probability of victimization (I do know that the # of victims per 10,000 people in NYC is 350, or 3.5%, and that in Osaka, the "most dangerous city in Japan," it's 3.4 per 10,000, or 0.034%) as due to phenomena not necessarily more important than firearms (I'll agree that far), but exclusive of firearms permissiveness in the US. That, despite very clear demonstrable differences between the US and other nations in terms of victimization, that guns are wholly blameless.

But, hey, let it be known that I wasn't the one who tried to start off with facts. It was the one who claimed that firearms fatalities are "infinitesimally small."

What's most striking to me about the account of what happened seems to be the clear implication that the shooter did not consider the gravity of his actions until after he fired his gun. Which most certainly speaks to the quality of parenthood and social environment he dealt with growing up.[/quote]

Funny you mention Japan immediately after talking about the supposed ease of gun-facilitated suicide, gun-free Japan more then doubles the US in suicides per capita (in world rankings Japan is number 10, USA is number 43).

Now, we agree there are cultural differences. How about geographical distances too - USA takes up a large part of a continent with porous borders, makes it hard to compare to small island nations with insular cultures such as England or Japan - or even small nations with clearly defined borders such as the Netherlands.

I also love the irony whenever someone points out how safe gun-free England is in comparison to the US. People are forgetting why this country was founded, Ben Franklin had a very pertinent quote on this very issue.
 
Whatever it is you're posting, myke, I hope that everyone else reading it enjoys it.

The thing that's awesome is, you lose, without me even doing anything. You can act all intellectual, and then when I don't read it and blow you off, I'm sure you make some lame joke about how "Oh look, the village idiot is too much of an idiot to face me and vast sea of intellect," but I never see any of it. I'm bulletproof against whatever pseudo-intellectualism you can muster. It's awesome.

Go back to your local trendy coffeeshop, I'm sure there's someone there who wants to hear it.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']that is un-american, I must assume you are Canadian or possibly French or maybe even French-Canadian. My Founding Father's had the ability to see into the future and could see every possible gun ever made. With this power they realized that every one needs to be armed with weapons in case we need to revolt on a government that has tactical nuclear devices. It makes perfect sense.[/quote]

Yes, because all of America's tactical nuclear devices really made the Iraq occupation proceed so smoothly.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yes, because all of America's tactical nuclear devices really made the Iraq occupation proceed so smoothly.[/QUOTE]

Wow. This thread is completely fucked crosswise. Seriously.
 
First, CoffeeEdge, if you think my metric for feeling successful about something is whether or not you want to engage it, you're dead wrong. Even when, however, you can't help but *really* read it and make digs about it indirectly.

[quote name='camoor']Funny you mention Japan immediately after talking about the supposed ease of gun-facilitated suicide, gun-free Japan more then doubles the US in suicides per capita (in world rankings Japan is number 10, USA is number 43).

Now, we agree there are cultural differences. How about geographical distances too - USA takes up a large part of a continent with porous borders, makes it hard to compare to small island nations with insular cultures such as England or Japan - or even small nations with clearly defined borders such as the Netherlands.

I also love the irony whenever someone points out how safe gun-free England is in comparison to the US. People are forgetting why this country was founded, Ben Franklin had a very pertinent quote on this very issue.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree that there are other factors; nevertheless, one sheer absurdity is the argument that guns are what protect us, which is used combined with a sort of vehement denial that guns can cause any kind of social problems at all. Both in the form of "if guns are outlawed..." pablum, which has not been demonstrated to be true (in the cases of many crimes, the guns are legally owned; ask Seung-Hui Cho about that), but the converse ("responsibly owned" guns that aren't legally owned or properly registered, but nonetheless never serve as accessories to crimes) is never considered as well. It's ultimately a feel-good bumper-sticker saying that many people uncritically accept as true, when more scrutiny shows a much more complex reality that, in all likelihood, doesn't reflect the saying.

I also don't follow your 'irony' about a mere quote Franklin had on the matter. Perhaps you could be less obtuse on this?
 
[quote name='dopa345']Who is to say that the kid wouldn't have simply used a knife or beat the other kid to death if he didn't have a gun? The fact of the matter is that the kid is responsible for his actions not the gun. The underlying problem isn't that guns are available, it's that no one is raising these kids right.[/quote]


The problem is that a gun only has one function and that is to kill. Not injure, not slow down, but to kill. At least if he attacked with fists or a knife, the other kid would have had a chance to fight back. Yeah, kids aren't being raised right, but it's hard to start a fire if one doesn't have the matches to ignite it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I also don't follow your 'irony' about a mere quote Franklin had on the matter. Perhaps you could be less obtuse on this?[/quote]

Well, it's endless repitition in unwarranted circumstances has cheapened the phrase.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Ben Franklin
Click to expand...
Ben Franklin championed the American Revolution against the British Empire - an empire that was propped up by disenfranchising colonies and not granting the colonists basic unalienable rights.

Since then the British Empire has been mostly disbanded and is a monarchy in name only. That doesn't mean that Americans can be any less vigilant in their protection of their rights against encroaching government interests.

The American Bill of Rights (including the second amendment) was introduced in the hope that American citizens would always enjoy the basic rights that they had been denied while under the rule of the English government. Now I occasionally read arguements stating that one of these American rights should be repealed because that's how it's done in England, and it's "safer" in England. Safer from a mugging gone bad - perhaps. Safer from an overbearing govt, not on your life (on the books, England is still a Monarchy. In the 21st century!) Being that much suffering and life was sacrificed in the name of freedom from the English government and it's autocratic conventions, I find it highly ironic that some people suggest we slowly import their system of govt once again. (Please note I'm not saying the English govt is still autocratic, just that some vestiges of the law from those days of the British Empire still manifest themselves in the English code of law)
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']The problem is that a gun only has one function and that is to kill. Not injure, not slow down, but to kill. At least if he attacked with fists or a knife, the other kid would have had a chance to fight back. Yeah, kids aren't being raised right, but it's hard to start a fire if one doesn't have the matches to ignite it.[/quote]

Not true. For example - for the most part the intent of a police officer who draws a gun should be to use it as a tool of submission (rather then a tool for dealing death)
 
I like what you posted, Camoor. Very correct about the use of firearms as deterrant. :)



Hmm...I'm sort of morbidly curious as to whether or not myke is even talking to me in any of those posts...wait, no, I'm not.

This is great. I'll never look at another one of that dangerously and imperialisticly (as in, he honestly thinks that his opinions should be law the world is run by) conceited egomaniac's posts again, but I'm sure that he'll write essays in response to things I post. Poor guy.
 
This is clearly the 15-year-old's fault. Who the hell plays a video game when the guy next to you has a loaded gun on him? And who the hell doesn't do exactly what they guy with the loaded gun tells you to do? He had it coming.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well, it's endless repitition in unwarranted circumstances has cheapened the phrase.[/quote]

That happens with a lot of quotes.

Ben Franklin championed the American Revolution against the British Empire - an empire that was propped up by disenfranchising colonies and not granting the colonists basic unalienable rights.

Since then the British Empire has been mostly disbanded and is a monarchy in name only. That doesn't mean that Americans can be any less vigilant in their protection of their rights against encroaching government interests.

The American Bill of Rights (including the second amendment) was introduced in the hope that American citizens would always enjoy the basic rights that they had been denied while under the rule of the English government. Now I occasionally read arguements stating that one of these American rights should be repealed because that's how it's done in England, and it's "safer" in England. Safer from a mugging gone bad - perhaps. Safer from an overbearing govt, not on your life (on the books, England is still a Monarchy. In the 21st century!) Being that much suffering and life was sacrificed in the name of freedom from the English government and it's autocratic conventions, I find it highly ironic that some people suggest we slowly import their system of govt once again. (Please note I'm not saying the English govt is still autocratic, just that some vestiges of the law from those days of the British Empire still manifest themselves in the English code of law)
Click to expand...

Eh, I see where you're coming from, but it's kind of a red herring argument, given that there are already laws that aim to control gun ownership. The "Franklin" sort of argument you're putting in place already exists in the US in the form of waiting periods and background checks for gunowners. I can see why folks would want to prevent movement in the direction of stricter control - but that's not what you're trying to argue here. It seems that you're arguing that, unless we permit unbounded and unfettered free access to firearms in this country with no restriction whatsoever, then we're headed towards an oppressive regime (the sort of paranoid "gun grab" perspective many anti-gun-law advocates have). And, since we are not currently in that place legislatively, that we're more or less slaves to the regime. No?

If you want to hold that perspective, that's fine. But in that case, it's unfair to hold any sense of shock or outrage when teenagers shoot each other in the head over a video game. It's just one example of the unfortunate side-effects of the permissiveness of guns in our society. "Collateral damage" in the name of maintaining a free society. So, in the future, instead of shock or outrage, I hope to see a kind of "Ho hum, that's what happens because we're free" reaction. Simply because we can not be a society who allows the access to firearms we have and then ALSO be outraged that people use them in idiotic ways; it should be expected to anyone who isn't lying to themselves. Like vehicular homicides.
 
[quote name='Poor2More']MIGHT cause aggression, not DO cause aggression :)[/quote]

In that case, ice cream sales cause sandal sales.

Correlation does not imply causation.
 
[quote name='CrimGhost']Typical, video games do cause agression in kids though.[/quote]

In that case, ice cream sales cause sandal sales.

Correlation does not imply causation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That happens with a lot of quotes.



Eh, I see where you're coming from, but it's kind of a red herring argument, given that there are already laws that aim to control gun ownership. The "Franklin" sort of argument you're putting in place already exists in the US in the form of waiting periods and background checks for gunowners. I can see why folks would want to prevent movement in the direction of stricter control - but that's not what you're trying to argue here. It seems that you're arguing that, unless we permit unbounded and unfettered free access to firearms in this country with no restriction whatsoever, then we're headed towards an oppressive regime (the sort of paranoid "gun grab" perspective many anti-gun-law advocates have). And, since we are not currently in that place legislatively, that we're more or less slaves to the regime. No?

If you want to hold that perspective, that's fine. But in that case, it's unfair to hold any sense of shock or outrage when teenagers shoot each other in the head over a video game. It's just one example of the unfortunate side-effects of the permissiveness of guns in our society. "Collateral damage" in the name of maintaining a free society. So, in the future, instead of shock or outrage, I hope to see a kind of "Ho hum, that's what happens because we're free" reaction. Simply because we can not be a society who allows the access to firearms we have and then ALSO be outraged that people use them in idiotic ways; it should be expected to anyone who isn't lying to themselves. Like vehicular homicides.[/quote]


I don't see how you can say it's unfair to be outraged over an incident such as this just because one doesn't support additional gun laws. Unfortunate things are sure to be expected when firearms are accessible as they are in the US, but that doesn't make them any less despicable. Promoting further gun control based on accidents (as mentioned in previous posts) and events such as these will not solve these problems of violence in society. Would stricter gun laws have prevented this specific circumstance? Possibly, but who is to say a different instrument would not have been used were a firearm not available? People that wish to do harm to others will do so no matter what tools they have available to them.

The argument to own firearms based on the premise of preventing an oppressive government will always be at the heart of the gun control debate. The idea of completely unrestricted gun control is a hard one to argue though. Existing gun laws essentially allow the government to decide who may own a firearm, which does not sit well with a large portion of the pro-gun crowd, but it's hard to argue for it when that means people with past records of violence or mental instability would be able to make purchases unchecked. Like with most controversial topics, some form of compromise has to be reached.
 
[quote name='jwarren879']I don't see how you can say it's unfair to be outraged over an incident such as this just because one doesn't support additional gun laws. Unfortunate things are sure to be expected when firearms are accessible as they are in the US, but that doesn't make them any less despicable. Promoting further gun control based on accidents (as mentioned in previous posts) and events such as these will not solve these problems of violence in society. Would stricter gun laws have prevented this specific circumstance? Possibly, but who is to say a different instrument would not have been used were a firearm not available? People that wish to do harm to others will do so no matter what tools they have available to them.

The argument to own firearms based on the premise of preventing an oppressive government will always be at the heart of the gun control debate. The idea of completely unrestricted gun control is a hard one to argue though. Existing gun laws essentially allow the government to decide who may own a firearm, which does not sit well with a large portion of the pro-gun crowd, but it's hard to argue for it when that means people with past records of violence or mental instability would be able to make purchases unchecked. Like with most controversial topics, some form of compromise has to be reached.[/QUOTE]

Take my advice, don't waste your time with myke. He's stubborn, and stubborn about being stubborn. I'm not going to read his post, but from what you wrote, it sounds like he says that, unless you're anti-gun, you're not allowed to be outraged/upset/whatever by a murder with a gun. It sounds like it falls in with his usual cynical bullshiz. He's also the type who looks down on people who are upset about celebrity deaths (the recent Heath Ledger passing comes to mind), because he thinks that it's hypocritical to be upset about that, and not equally upset about every anonymous death in Darfur and Iraq (because apparently, people have finite pity quotas that must be divided up evenly).

I think he's the sort who, given the hypothetical opportunity, would be glad to set himself up as world dictator, so that he could force all of his "deep" views of society on everyone. Very, very "intellectually" imperialistic, dangerously aloof.

Just a warning to not waste too much time with him. He won't budge, and prefers to "beratingly insist," rather than "debate."
 
[quote name='jwarren879']I don't see how you can say it's unfair to be outraged over an incident such as this just because one doesn't support additional gun laws. Unfortunate things are sure to be expected when firearms are accessible as they are in the US, but that doesn't make them any less despicable. Promoting further gun control based on accidents (as mentioned in previous posts) and events such as these will not solve these problems of violence in society. Would stricter gun laws have prevented this specific circumstance? Possibly, but who is to say a different instrument would not have been used were a firearm not available? People that wish to do harm to others will do so no matter what tools they have available to them.[/quote]

Possibly. There's a style of thought among criminologists called "environmental criminology." The simple version of this thinking is that, irrespective of individual motives and desires, the environment can be sculpted to make crime less probable. This can be seen historically in changing phone booths' ('member those?) coin boxes from aluminum to steel - thus making the breaking of them extremely difficult, and not worth the time or effort to steal a bunch of dimes (that was about how long ago that transition happened).

OTOH, there was a nice "drug loop" on a block where I used to live; the city's response was to put up a guardrail so that people could not exit the interstate and drive down this particular street. Research findings showed a staggering 85% decrease in drug-related activity on that block. Further research showed an 85% increase one block over. So, it doesn't always work by changing the environment.

The point I am trying to make is one to counter what I saw following the VT shootings a year ago: permit conceal/carry on campus to make sure this doesn't happen. It is an unarguable necessity that, where guns exist, accidents will happen and are unpreventable. Thus, if guns are permitted on campuses, then shooting fatalities will increase, *at the very least* by accidents alone, and possibly with regard to homicides as well. I am of the opinion that the freedom to possess and use firearms is inextricably linked to the understanding that accidents, at the very least, are inevitable, and misuse as well. This includes VT (where everything was legal until the shootings started), and this includes those of you who own, clean, and respect your firearms. They are intertwined and inseparable.

If you accept freedoms, then, you also must accept the consequences of those freedoms.

The argument to own firearms based on the premise of preventing an oppressive government will always be at the heart of the gun control debate. The idea of completely unrestricted gun control is a hard one to argue though. Existing gun laws essentially allow the government to decide who may own a firearm, which does not sit well with a large portion of the pro-gun crowd, but it's hard to argue for it when that means people with past records of violence or mental instability would be able to make purchases unchecked. Like with most controversial topics, some form of compromise has to be reached.
Click to expand...

Sure. The back-and-forth of pro and anti-gun-law adovcates serves the social function of finding that place where compromise can be reached. So long as we don't delve into stereotypes (i.e., all anti-gun types are Zionist gun-grabbers who want to impose a totalitarian regime, or all pro-gun types are nutjob paranoid Ron Paul Ruby Ridge motherfuckers), and as long as we don't delve into absolutes (all-or-nothing arguments), I think that reasonable debate can be had about gun ownership.
 
I agree with all the people here that say we should ban guns... While we are at it lets ban everything that ever caused someone to die... knives, bombs, bees, water, sex, hamburgers, cars, space, time, tigers, police officers, peanuts, electricity, sunlight, cigarettes, dogs, submarines, soda machines, surgery, rusty nails, medicine, gravity, religion, pirates, ninjas, wrestling, quicksand, swimming, bicycles, bows, arrows, etc etc.

Because we get a handful of situations where nut-jobs use registered weapons to kill someone lets ban them. So next year when someone gets stabbed in the face for the same reason we can have something else to blame.
 
Lot of great posts here - just want to add that I don't think American citizens should have complete and unfettered access to any projectile weapon out there. As Jwarren points out, some compromise needs to be reached.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Take my advice, don't waste your time with myke. He's stubborn, and stubborn about being stubborn. I'm not going to read his post, but from what you wrote, it sounds like he says that, unless you're anti-gun, you're not allowed to be outraged/upset/whatever by a murder with a gun. It sounds like it falls in with his usual cynical bullshiz. He's also the type who looks down on people who are upset about celebrity deaths (the recent Heath Ledger passing comes to mind), because he thinks that it's hypocritical to be upset about that, and not equally upset about every anonymous death in Darfur and Iraq (because apparently, people have finite pity quotas that must be divided up evenly).

I think he's the sort who, given the hypothetical opportunity, would be glad to set himself up as world dictator, so that he could force all of his "deep" views of society on everyone. Very, very "intellectually" imperialistic, dangerously aloof.

Just a warning to not waste too much time with him. He won't budge, and prefers to "beratingly insist," rather than "debate."[/quote]

Knock it off dude. You're neither proving anything nor adding to the discussion with your attacks.

Ever see the movie Thank You For Smoking? There's a great line in there where Aaron Eckhart is talking to his son and tries to convince him that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate. After a fairly short discussion, the kid states "you didn't convince me." The dad points to the crowd and replies "It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them."

The short of it? I don't agree with much of what Myke says either, but going out of your way to notify everyone that you're ignoring his comments is not going to win you an argument.
 
No need for that, though I appreciate it, lonepig.

Instead, let's talk about where we disagree. That's much more fun than pandering to an internet-fight-seeking perpetual contrarian. Back to the gun talk!
 
[quote name='thelonepig']The short of it? I don't agree with much of what Myke says either, but going out of your way to notify everyone that you're ignoring his comments is not going to win you an argument.[/QUOTE]

Who says I care about winning arguments? I'm just havin some fun.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No need for that, though I appreciate it, lonepig.

Instead, let's talk about where we disagree. That's much more fun than pandering to an internet-fight-seeking perpetual contrarian. Back to the gun talk![/quote]

Oh, but you see - I agree with you on this topic. ;)

EDIT: Also, I figured you'd tell him to quit if it ever became too annoying. I'm just tired of reading the constant "Oh, I'm almost semi-tempted to kinda nearly click on the reveal button and read what he has to say" text.
 
It's evidence that he does read; had I responded to someone else's point largely, he may not have made such a scene. Anyway, that's that.

Also, no fair on agreeing with me here after taunting me by saying you disagree!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's evidence that he does read; had I responded to someone else's point largely, he may not have made such a scene. Anyway, that's that.

Also, no fair on agreeing with me here after taunting me by saying you disagree![/quote]

I'll just have to go out of my way to point out where I do disagree next time it comes up. ;)
 
[quote name='thelonepig']EDIT: Also, I figured you'd tell him to quit if it ever became too annoying. I'm just tired of reading the constant "Oh, I'm almost semi-tempted to kinda nearly click on the reveal button and read what he has to say" text.[/QUOTE]

Except I only just, during this thread, fully swore off myke's shit posts, and haven't read one since.

So, yeah. Don't see what y'all are fussing about.

I may be a jerk, but at least I'm not a conceited, dangerously egocentric, fascist intellectual and ethical imperialist. Well, that's that.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Except I only just, during this thread, fully swore off myke's shit posts, and haven't read one since.[/quote]

I don't see how that qualifies as an 'except' statement considering I was referring to your posts in this thread. Feel free to debate, but keep in mind that it takes more than one person to do so. Without a dissenting opinion, you're really just complaining with your buddies.

A good rule of thumb for debating is to always show respect to others involved and to never take comments to heart. Just because somebody doesn't believe the same way you do doesn't make them "conceited, dangerously egotistic, facist intellectual, or ethical imperialist."

Besides, I half expect (though he'll have to answer this himself) that mykevermin doesn't necessarily believe 100% of what he argues. Sometimes it's just fun to play the devil's advocate and go with it.

Anyway...

I'd like to say something that sounds intelligent to the ignorant masses such as "We don't need stricter gun control, we need better gun education."

The problem with such a statement is that if it doesn't work with driving, why should it work with firearms?
 
[quote name='Mr_hockey66']owning a gun is fine. Why can a regular joe get a machine gun? Yeah you can have a musket loader or a pistol. One that you have to pour the gun powder into pack a bullet and then fire. That would be fine by me. This anti tank weapons that we have now a days is a little over board. Guns are everywhere. I grow up playing games with a gun. I loved duck hunt! Didn't make me want to kill anything but the damn dog that kept laughing at me. Kids nowadys need a good ass kicking! Let them spank in schools again with a tree branch! Like my dad got. This crap will not happen again.[/QUOTE]


I don't know. A gun is a gun. If someone had a pistol or a machine gun, they could kill me easily. There really is no reason for the average joe to be carrying a gun. The only reason would be to arm themselves against others who have guns. If gun control was really locked down making it hard for gangs and other violent people to get access to them, I don't see why anyone would need a gun.

[quote name='gobz']I agree with all the people here that say we should ban guns... While we are at it lets ban everything that ever caused someone to die... knives, bombs, bees, water, sex, hamburgers, cars, space, time, tigers, police officers, peanuts, electricity, sunlight, cigarettes, dogs, submarines, soda machines, surgery, rusty nails, medicine, gravity, religion, pirates, ninjas, wrestling, quicksand, swimming, bicycles, bows, arrows, etc etc.

Because we get a handful of situations where nut-jobs use registered weapons to kill someone lets ban them. So next year when someone gets stabbed in the face for the same reason we can have something else to blame.[/QUOTE]

What are guns made for though? They are made for killing. The other things you listed (except for bombs, ninjas, and arrows) were not made for killing.
 
[quote name='ananag112']What are guns made for though? They are made for killing. The other things you listed (except for bombs, ninjas, and arrows) were not made for killing.[/quote]

And recreation, intimidation, and for collecting. And my personal favorite: action movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top