School employee accidentally shoots student

Post Reply New Topic

Either you have a horrible memory or you're a liar, because I've seen you make the argument that while there are car accidents we aren't planning to ban cars.

Using an argument when it's convenient for you and then attacking someone for turning the same argument on you just exemplifies your poor debate skills. Plus, it makes you look like a hypocrite.

As for the "or what" thing...nothing. You'll just look like an a***hole. I mean if you like being an a***hole then cool, be an a***hole.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjukzUOM0ac[/youtube]


I'm OK with this.

So? I want to get rid of all guns.big deal.What matters is that this small band have little influence and are not likely to have the say-so on these matters,so that point is moot.As I said its beyond unlikely that any government in the USA would have the ability to remove guns altogether short of an earth-shaking change in the politics of the USA,one of Science-fiction proportions.



What compromises? Its all "not an inch". I imagine the NRA think they are compromising-being very generous-by not pushing for compulsory gun-ownership, for not demanding that all checks, anywhere, be abolished and for not demanding that the mentally ill be given the right to bear arms. But give LaPierre time,he's probably working on these this very moment.

I live in Cleveland now. And not in the good area. I just have to say that every single person in my apartment building (12 apartments) owns a gun. Crime in this part of town has gone up significantly in the past several years.

About the only thing I've said that relates cars to guns is that I see carrying a gun as equal to wearing a seatbelt OR that vehicular deaths and injuries outnumber firearm related injuries and deaths. While I do have good recall of all the times I've burned the gunz-r-bad gang, I don't remember absolutely everything. It's nice to see that you've taken such an interest in me, though.




All the name calling.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjukzUOM0ac[/youtube]


I'm sure you would be.
I've effectively punched a few people and even knocked one out but have learned that it's no defense against getting shot, except in old B grade kung fu movies where most of your knowledge about the real world probably comes from. You've proven yourself a gun hater in past threads so nothing you could say would surprise me.

Hey Raptor,
I see you've stopped sparring with me in the "US Government wants to take firearms away by force!" thread.
I guess I'll just address a few of your more recent statements in this one.

For starters, you can't compare the number of auto injuries to gun injuries at all. It would have to be a percentage comparison. The percentage of car owners who are injured/killed vs the percentage of gun owners who are. And even then you have to do some serious statistical weighting to achieve even a semblance of accuracy, since not everyone uses their gun on the way to grandma's house or on the way to work each day (hopefully).

And am I correct in assuming that your position is that the only solution to violence is more violence? Perhaps I am not interpreting your words correctly. If this is the case,please let me know.

It's jack-assery to continually and blindly stick to the "all gun regulation is evil and will lead to the abolishment of the 2nd ammendment" party line on this gun topic.
No one wants their kid or anyone else's to be shot but to hold shootings up as if that's no concern as a cause of death is weak and reinforces the charge about blindly sticking to the party line.

And if you want to accuse me of being anti gun again, go ahead; I enjoy exposing your hypocritical logic choices and faulty reasoning as much as watching your frequent over-generalizations about others. And maybe you can start bragging about how proud you are that you can drive people off of the forums (that sure proves you were right, doesn't it). It is not all of your opinions that I disagree with (although some of your most paranoid ones are fairly amusing), but the method you employ when you try to "prove" them.

You fail to realize that this is exactly the kind of comparison I am referring to. As Sonofghandi has said, you would have to use ratios to make these sorts of comparisons with any meaning at all.

As for the "punching" video, you can think whatever you want. There are definitely ways to disarm an armed opponent without killing or grievously wounding them. Most people don't draw fast enough to avoid being shot while drawing anyways - your self-defense strategy comes out of old Westerns where 80-year-old men all have fabulous reaction times.

The difference between cars and guns is that people are held accountable for their cars.

As for the accidental shooting in the article...I believe someone already mentioned that leaving a loaded gun unattended in a car is a stupid idea.

/\
I could shred your claims one by one but why bother? You're on the losing side of the gun control issue in THIS counrty. Enough of society has seen through your side's sheepish logic and raving rhetoric to keep your wishes from coming true for the forseable future. Even if you were right it woudnt matter because not enough people are buying into it. Every sentence of your last post is a testiment to the cluelessnes of your side.

The losing side of gun control? I have some unfortunate news for you: control measures will be passed. It is only a matter of when. There will always be gun violence and death in this country, and eventually an event is going to be so horrible that it will cause enough outrage to ram-rod reactionary regulations through very quickly. I think maybe the NRA should start trying to have a say in the regulations that will be coming instead of trying to prevent the inevitable. Maybe the NRA could win back some of the gun owners they've been alienating for the last decade and a half.

Of course, ALL guns will be wiped from the face of the earth and we'll all live forever.
It's so wonderful it just makes me want to siiiiiinnng
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpzhm6084O0[/youtube]

Last edited by Raptor on 26 Jun 2013, 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Because talk is cheap, and not "shredding [my] claims one by one" makes you look like you really don't have anything to say, and are so embarrassed by this that you have to compensate. Go on, start shredding. It's something you can easily do on your computer, right now, if you had the motivation. In fact, I'm interested to see the faults in my logic and rhetoric. Enlighten me.

And I posted this just in time to see the above post. Wow.

I don't see how requiring background checks when you buy a gun on the internet can lead to all the guns being taken away. You may have to explain that to me.

We'll trade them in for free rubbers, healthcare, and Obamaphones.

You sound like a freshman in the regular track.

Glocks don't have a safety switch along with some other guns. Here is an example of somebody accidentally getting shot with a Glock. Man Shot by Neighbor Unloading Gun I'm thinking guns without a safety switch separate from the trigger should be banned as guns, as they can accidentally hurt and kill people.

Glocks are the most common semi-auto handgun out there. That being the case, the streets should be running red with blood from all the accidents, according to you. They have a passive safety that is integral with the trigger.
The active safety is that you keep your finger out of the trigger guard. The story of the neighbor being shot was negligence in that the pistol was being unloaded with a finger obviously on the trigger. Nobody that knows what they are talking about is complaining about Glocks not being safe enough.
Good luck banning them.

Moved to politics.
It is news but if you are going to try to start a political debate it goes to politics.